Hulver's site || I am dead serious.

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

I am dead serious.

By blixco (Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:51:27 PM EST) (all tags)

AIG board of whatever? After this?

What are their names and addresses?

That should be public, right?

Or at least grep-able.

I'd pay, say, Choice Point to sell me their info. Or whomever.

What are their names? Who are they? Who are they married to? Who are their children?

Where do they live?

How can I reach them?

< How lucky can one be? | Rough Evening... >

Related Links

- this?
- blixco's Diary

Google

Hit Counter

128 Husi users have viewed this.

Comment Controls

I am dead serious. | 78 comments (78 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

No really. by blixco (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 09:52:33 PM EST

It is time to make this personal.

As personal as possible.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin

Not excusing the cash by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #2 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:07:48 PM EST

But from what I understand, the people at this think weren't execs in the financial wing and were instead normal schmuck employees.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}

Then what are their names? by blixco (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:14:03 PM EST

I want to get to know them.

Every single thing about them.

Because we paid for that. And "that" is more money than most will ever see.

So: how do we find out who they are, and how to reach them? I want this to be as personal as possible.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Perhaps you would like the secretaries' info too by R343L (4.00 / 1) #12 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:47:06 PM EST

I mean, I'm sure most AIG offices have free coffee like most professional offices. Coffee for 100,000 must add up to a lot!

But seriously, chill out. This is just a benefit you get in certain types of jobs. If AIG cancelled this kind of thing, then people in those jobs might quit. It's their pony. And until we see Congress doing something serious like taxing the fuck out of everyone (I mean everyone except maybe families making less than $50,000). And executives voluntarily limiting their compensation (or Congress doing it for them). And various other things that qualify as belt-tightening, I don't see why Joe Best-Quarterly Sales should have to give up his pony.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

that's some nasty hand waving by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:32:16 AM EST

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

Err? by R343L (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:41:40 AM EST

I'm not sure what you mean. We've been paying for god knows how much stuff for a decade now with no way to pay for it. Nasty how? Saying we should raise taxes to pay for things? I don't see how that's nasty. Of course I don't know exact figures on what would be needed, but it's not like we've been taxing enough to pay for what we were spending before we started bailing out big companies.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

I'm shocked you posted this by MillMan (4.00 / 2) #19 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 03:42:55 AM EST

I don't see why Joe Best-Quarterly Sales should have to give up his pony.

Because their employers are bankrupt and the business has failed. I thought you were a libertarian? Blixco shouldn't be told to chill out when his tax money is being directly funneled to the upper class.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

: Uh ... by R343L (2.00 / 0) #52 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM EST

Even if they are working for a bankrupt company the point of the bailout was to keep them running. If you start treating your employees like crap (people get really upset when they lose minor benefits like this), they leave. And it is, as Gedvondur pointed out, an incredibly miniscule amount of money relative to everything else.
Also, as you don't see other parts (of AIG, of the economy) tightening up -- AIG wasn't allowed to fail, but other companies are, other companies aren't. Meanwhile, Congress just spent a fucktonne of money to bail out more companies (and god knows what else). Why would they feel like they had to give something up probably promised to them a year ago? Should they give up their salary too? It's not Joe Best Quarterly Sales' fault the company failed. (And I was under the impression this big event had some executives but was mostly high performers in things like sales, hence my example).
And no, not per se a libertarian, especially with this kind of stuff. I don't understand thee financial system well enough to say "let them fail".
Rachael

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

Yeah lets all chill out. by blixco (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:55:31 AM EST

Obviously that works.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Chilling out is not enough in this time of crisis by herbert (4.00 / 1) #50 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:14:20 AM EST

As well as emergency chilling out programmes we need urgent government support for relaxing, hanging loose, calming down, and taking it easy.

[ Parent ]

: What about chillaxing? by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #75 Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:50:41 AM EST

I think my persistent chillaxing should be worth some fucking tax credits.
This coomenat has be n soidnsord by hurricanbe ice malt liqur
[ Parent ]

Chill out by R343L (2.00 / 0) #54 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM EST

was because this is a trivial thing to be upset with -- of course the politicians are demagoguing it. But it's nothing in comparison to the larger issues (and I think there are good reasons to go ahead with such an event even under bad circumstances). Getting upset over it (wanting to know where they live?!) plays into the hands of those who have far more responsibility (and more power) who would just assume operate on the quiet (because, I think, they don't have a clue what to do.) We should be paying attention to what Paulson wants to do with all that money, trying to get Congress to do something to reign in other spending (and raise taxes *somewhere) so we don't bankrupt the country with inflation, etc.

But better to obliquely threaten some guy whose only fault is to be one of their better insurance agents. That'll teach 'em.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

The implied threat was your own. by blixco (2.00 / 0) #56 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:09:30 PM EST

I simply seek accountability.

And, yeah, "this" is an important thing to be upset about. I'm all for being critical of each snowflake that makes an avalanche.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Uh... by R343L (2.00 / 0) #57 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST

Generally people who want to find out:

What are their names? Who are they? Who are they married to? Who are their children?

about someone is at least going to verbally harangue him. The last couple are definitely none of your business ... and I rarely see such demands from people who only want to yell. (I do think most people would take it as a threat to have someone angrily demand the names of their children, btw.)

Anyway, what accountability? So if every member of every failing (and bailed out) company down to the janitors doesn't give up everything, then they need to be yelled at and "held accountable"? The people that are "in charge" are the ones you need to be angry with -- that certainly isn't a sales agent, even if he does go to a party he was promised but is probably not the smartest move by the company. He's not responsible for that decision.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

Note the original diary entry, by blixco (2.00 / 0) #58 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:21:00 PM EST

and whose information I am requesting.

So far as wanting to know *everything* about them, if I knew the things about them that I know about my elected officials, then they'd probably be less inclined to destroy the country.

Maybe not, but I'd like to let the market decide that.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

: board of by R343L (4.00 / 1) #60 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:24:43 PM EST

Okay, but then everyone else goes off on how horrible the people who went are. How dare they!
I still think it's pretty out of bounds to be asking about kids. Yeah, we know that stuff about politicians, but it's because they use them as political props to some degree (have to be a family man!) not because we have a right to know. Also, I don't see how you being able to write them and complain would change their behavior really.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

You get free coffee? by georgeha (2.00 / 0) #47 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:56:07 AM EST

We did away with ours in the layoffs of 2002, ever since it's 35 cents a cup for crappy joe.

[ Parent ]

Irrelevant by ad hoc (4.00 / 4) #7 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:00:32 PM EST

They were executives and employees of a bankrupt company that just got an $85B handout of your and my money. Then spent $½M of that money on golf and food.

That's not why they were given my money.

--
The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.
[ Parent ]

: BUT THEY WERE STRESSED! by nightflameblue (4.00 / 2) #34 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:51:19 AM EST

Do you know how much relaxation costs when you're stressed? I could get you in touch with MSSS to explain this to you if you'd like.

[ Parent ]

It's like by jayhawk88 (4.00 / 3) #4 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:30:48 PM EST

They want us to riot in the streets. All addictions eventually become self-destructive right? Is this just rock bottom of a money addiction?

: Maybe. by blixco (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:36:15 PM EST

I say, let's help them understand. One on one.

Everyone they know.

Everyone.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

these things are scheduled months in advance by dr k (4.00 / 7) #6 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 10:56:03 PM EST

and they would have lost the catering deposit if they canceled.

:| :| :| :| :|

I would like to know them regardless. by blixco (4.00 / 1) #8 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:06:28 PM EST

I want them to understand.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

: HAHAHA!!! Like the President of the United States by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #41 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:08:43 AM EST

understands he's just a public servant who "serves at you pleasure." You pay his salary, you helped appoint him. But you just try and drag him into a conference room for a little employer to employee smack-down on how poorly he's performing. Hell, we even renewed his contract!

[ Parent ]

Shut up and pay up, plebeian! by greyrat (4.00 / 2) #9 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:22:58 PM EST

And largess will not be distributed!

eh? by aphrael (4.00 / 4) #10 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:25:34 PM EST

Who are their children?

What do their children have to do with it?

Down this road lies fascism and tyranny.

If television is a babysitter, the internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up.

I know my congressperson's by blixco (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:52:10 AM EST

families. Their associates. Who they work with.

I know this because they spend my cash.

These companies that we are bailing out, we need the same access to information.

What I do with that information is up to me. Nothing here is implied or encouraged. I think public shame is fine.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

: families by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #40 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:08:00 AM EST

The right to know their families is unnecessary I think, even for your congress representative, with the caveat that should they become involved in how the cash is spent, they are fair game.

[ Parent ]

Oh, grow up by Gedvondur (4.00 / 4) #11 Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 11:30:56 PM EST

I have no doubt these fucks have already decided to pay for this little junket themselves just to duck the political fallout. You don't think that trip will even move one comma on their personal spending money accounts, do you? We only found out about it because some fuck in Congress decided he could get some TV time by grandstanding.

On top of all that, lets have a sense of proportion here. We paid what, 85 billion dollars to prevent AIG from falling over? And their bill was $443,343.71. According the best guess on #husi, that is .000005% rounding to the first significant digit.

Its a fucking rounding error.

If those fat cats need their jocks lubed and livers tickled by expensive drinks and a fancy resort, I don't really care. If it makes it even a tiny bit more possible that AIG might be able to pay back more than the cost of that trip back to the government, then more power to them.

On top of all that, rich fat cats like this never suffer any consequences. It isn't right and it isn't fair, but if you want to give some comeuppance, you need a better test case than this.

At the end of the day, there are so many more things to be pissed off about, so many other injustices that need to be addressed, this doesn't even show up on the radar.

We spent 700 billion on a bailout bill that was so full of pork that it looked like a triple-decker ham sandwich.

Keep some perspective.

Gedvondur

"I love my brain. It's the only organ I can afford to lose." --frijolito

if I recall correctly by dr k (4.00 / 1) #13 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:22:34 AM EST

we saw a similar "All You Can Eat" pork feast in 2006, when it was clear the Republicans were going to lose their legislative majority. And really it is those guys, the guys who left the stage before the curtain call, who should be the next against the wall. But that would require, uh, unprecedented objectivity in Washington.

:| :| :| :| :|
[ Parent ]

Why are you defending this? by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 3) #18 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 03:29:04 AM EST

Seriously? Why are you defending this? I what world is this acceptable? Where I work every expense claim has to be justified, and no one gets bonuses if their project, and the company as a whole, is not profitable. That this organisation is vast, and it's debts massive, does not change the fact that half a million dollars can do a lot. That could make a huge difference to peoples lives. That could kit out a school with new equipment, or pay for a life saving medical procedure. And it was wasted. It is an abuse of power, it is shameless embezzlement of public funds. It is theft.

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

Indeed. Or even by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #30 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 08:29:33 AM EST

save several regular people's peoples jobs People who now will probably be laid off and claim unemployment and possibly other social services that we will also pa for..

--
The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.
[ Parent ]

as pointed out to blixco by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #32 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:22:02 AM EST

did that $400k just go up in smoke ? It paid local workers, local taxes, etc etc. It isn't ghost money that went nowhere. It paid the salaries of the manicurists, paid the doorman, the bellhop, the maids, the water bill, the sysco delivery truck, the fisherman bringing in dinner, etc etc. Look beyond "some greedy jerks spent $400k of MY tax money."

[ Parent ]

: That's not what it was for. by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #35 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:51:56 AM EST

Full stop.

--
The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.
[ Parent ]

Hmmm by Gedvondur (4.00 / 1) #33 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:47:01 AM EST

I'm not defending it. I am providing some perspective on what is a rash course of action to assail these people personally with some kind of vigilante cape.

There are clearly a few things that people don't get about the money we provided AIG. 1st, we didn't attach any strings as to how it was to be spent. We gave them the money virtually string free.

2nd, it appears that this little junket was to retain top talent at the firm. Understandably, its top people, both executives and sales are considering jobs elsewhere. That would hurt AIG, possibly badly. And then we get to spend more money.

Lastly, tell me exactly how much regulation you want on AIG's ongoing businesses. Subsidized coffee for employees, is that gone? Just think how that twenty grand a year could pay for something! Raises for employees who are important and thinking about jumping ship? Hell, wind damage to the AIG sign outside HQ? What, just slap some plywood and get out a can of spraypaint?

Do I think a half-million dollar junket was appropriate? No. However this "They can't spend one dime...that's my money....how dare they" attitude is just stupid. AIG is still a private enterprise. The only way to get the control many of you are looking for is to nationalize the company.

Oh, and the "What about the children" thing at the end there? Nice touch, but more emotional, thoughtless factory break room policy.

Gedvondur

"I love my brain. It's the only organ I can afford to lose." --frijolito
[ Parent ]

Pork... by Breaker (4.00 / 2) #20 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 06:19:39 AM EST

lolwhat? "Division C, SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN."

That'll help restore liquidity in the markets then, eh?

Maybe this is the kick up the arse that USia needs? Generations of being brainwashed that the US is "the number one bestest country EVAR" may now be looking at their homeland a little more critically for a while.

[ Parent ]

tax free wooden arrows by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 3) #21 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 06:47:43 AM EST

are a vital part of preventing an economic crisis

SRSLY

--- Thad ---
developer of ... ?
[ Parent ]

: I'm glad by Breaker (4.00 / 3) #22 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:07:47 AM EST

That the US has such altruistic and talented people steering the nation through these difficult times.

[ Parent ]
: don't forget: by dr k (4.00 / 3) #65 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:17:36 PM EST

Archers provide +25% defense when garrisoned in a city.

:| :| :| :| :|
[ Parent ]

Perspective by Phil the Canuck (4.00 / 2) #23 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:48:22 AM EST

I don't think one dollar of taxpayer money should be funneled into some executive's pedicure.

[ Parent ]

Fun Challenge for Phil by Gedvondur (2.00 / 0) #37 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:55:48 AM EST

Prove to anyone that it came out of the 85 billion, not some other money that AIG had laying around.

AIG was "broke" but that meant it only had like 25 billion on hand.

Gedvondur

"I love my brain. It's the only organ I can afford to lose." --frijolito
[ Parent ]

Fun challenge for AIG by Phil the Canuck (4.00 / 2) #43 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:37:10 AM EST

Prove to taxpayers that they are justified spending anything on luxuries when they just received $85 billion in corporate welfare, regardless of which budget line was used.

[ Parent ]

Heh by Gedvondur (2.00 / 0) #45 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:48:20 AM EST

Okay...show me a law or an agreement, or a rule that says that they have to. No?

Then perhaps your rage is focused on the wrong people. Send your SCUD missles of taxpayer hate to Washington instead.

Gedvondur

"I love my brain. It's the only organ I can afford to lose." --frijolito
[ Parent ]

: Why does my rage need to be so focused? by Phil the Canuck (4.00 / 2) #48 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:00:53 AM EST

Why use precision weaponry when carpet bombing is so clearly what's needed?

Besides, I'm just a responsible taxpaying alien. Washington doesn't give a shit what I think.

[ Parent ]

If it is my cash by blixco (4.00 / 1) #25 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:53:56 AM EST

in that rounding error, or if my tax money pays for any portion of that company, then I get to know who they are.

It should be public knowledge.

As I mention in another post, I know the names and addresses of my congresspeople. I know the names and addresses of the boards of public companies.

Now, if you choose to do something stupid with that information, obviously, you're unhinged.

I just want information.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

And remember by sasquatchan (4.00 / 2) #31 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:20:03 AM EST

that $400k spent on pedicures went to low income workers. I doubt the resort owner is making seven figures of income off this.. So it's all trickling down, your tax dollars are helping keep those folks employed..

(repeat until necessary)

[ Parent ]

: Did it? by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #38 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:58:36 AM EST

And how do you know that?

We're not talking about Motel 6.

--
The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.
[ Parent ]
: Sarcasm tags appear to be broken again. by greyrat (4.00 / 1) #39 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:00:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Actually by Gedvondur (4.00 / 1) #36 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 09:52:24 AM EST

No, you don't get a right to that information.

The government provided AIG with operating cash, they didn't buy them. They are a private enterprise. The people who work there have the right to privacy. And that right trumps your taxpayer's outrage.

Ask yourself this. If your company ever took any government money, for goods, services, or even in tax breaks....Should I be able to make demands on your company, and demand your name and address? No.

I'm not saying that was AIG did was smart. It wasn't. But the responses to it are way out of proportion. Particularly yours, Blixco. We didn't socialize AIG. And until I see a bill of sale saying that the US Government has bought AIG lock stock and barrel, you don't have any more rights over AIG than you do any other private firm. Your taxpayer's outrage shoud be focused on the people that gave AIG money with no strings attached, not AIG employees.

Gedvondur

"I love my brain. It's the only organ I can afford to lose." --frijolito
[ Parent ]

: So we didn't subsidize them? by blixco (4.00 / 1) #49 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:06:44 AM EST

Well then, it is the lawmakers and not the perceived lawbreakers. The politicians (and by extension the public who voted for them) and not the irresponsible. Cool.

In re: my company, anytime you want you can request the names and addresses of the people who support our government funded projects.

You can do this with any program that is government funded, provided the information is 1) requested appropriately and 2) the project is not classified.

To that end, I have not worked on any project using taxpayer dollars, but those projects that we have that *do* use government cash are subject to the harshest rules and regulations regarding their transparency that I have ever imagined. Even the projects that are not publicly available are sibject to audits the likes of which you have not seen. Every minute of every man hour is accounted for. Every shift in the project is calculated. And this isn't just us smaller contractors. The output from one L3 project alone is enough to fill this building with accountability information.

So, if those same types of rules and regulations are not applied to the cash that AIG got, then it is not AIGs fault. It is the morons who lent them the money.

However, AIG is not without fault. And seeing as how I am also a shareholder and a customer, my outrage is not simply taxpayer motivated.

All of that said, you and a few other...types? Personalities? in this discussion read a whole lot into a simple query, and if you imagine that my intent is violent then your fantasies are far darker than my reality. I'd say, check your meds.

I'm fully of the opinion that the market should decide the outcome of the mistakes AIG and others have made. As those mistakes begin to impact my quality of life (and no, they have not affected the material quality of my life, they have just affected the financial), I feel that there may be a great deal of market space for the information I'd like.

I think, in fact, that accountability will become a commodity with a value much higher than the lives of those who shy away from it.

But my own desire for this information isn't sinister. Whatever makes you think that accountability is bad, is part of what is wrong with the current economic situation.

I just like to put names to faces. And faces to maps. What do you think that makes me, personally, capable of? Again, if you imagine that my tone or intent are at all violent, then you're projecting something on to me that is both uninvited and irrational. I'm thinking: letter writing. Harassment that is aboveboard. Names posted with positions, and what they are responsible for. But that may be too much even for AIG. I guess we should just let them do what they want without any fear of reprisal, or any stringent accountability.

That's worked to now so well that, hey, I don't get to retire.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

My good friend, high-gravity lager, helps me by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #14 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:48:38 AM EST

to ignore this shit. AWESOME!

Drunk and can still use commas correctly. AWESOMER!

This coomenat has be n soidnsord by hurricanbe ice malt liqur

: I'm tired of ignoring it. by blixco (2.00 / 0) #27 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:56:51 AM EST

Everyone I know is ignoring it.

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

That's selfish and irresponsible. by muchagecko (4.00 / 2) #15 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:04:29 AM EST

They're just following the lead of our current regime.

A purpose gives you a reason to wake up every morning.
So a purpose is like a box of powdered donut holes?
Exactly
My Name is Earl

Selfish and irresponsible? by blixco (4.00 / 3) #28 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:58:48 AM EST

No, it is responsible. And it is that thing that is the opposite of selfish.

This company is a public company now. I get to know who they are because they spend my cash. I know my elected officials, where they live. I know the board of the local power company, who they are, where they live.

Why does that information scare you?

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

: No fear. by muchagecko (4.00 / 1) #68 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:55:08 PM EST

I've asked for help from many agencies in my life. There are always stipulations on how the $ is to be used.

For a company to use public money so frivolously is irresponsible. It's amazing to me that the money was given without stipulations. Was it really "Here. Have some cash to do with whatever you want".

Is it really a good idea to give money to companies that have a crappy financial record anyway? Wouldn't that be the definition of irresponsible?

A purpose gives you a reason to wake up every morning.
So a purpose is like a box of powdered donut holes?
Exactly
My Name is Earl
[ Parent ]

I agree with you in spirit by webwench (4.00 / 3) #29 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 08:20:21 AM EST

I really do. I supported the initial Bear Stears bailout earlier this year, but I vocally did not support this last series of bailouts exactly because of this profligate waste... if these execs can get these salaries and spend this kind of money on junkets and fluff, they don't need taxpayer money, period.

That said, most of us on this site got a 'stimulus payment' this past summer, which is a bailout writ small (albeit unasked for). Most of us also get some form of tax write-off every year, either child tax credits or mortgage interest writeoffs or whatever. Do individuals and their families have to give up all privacy if they've received taxpayer money in some form or fashion? If some do, where's the line?

I know, reductio ad absurdum. I still think I have a point here.

^{Getting more attention than you since 1998. Ya ya!}

the really, really subtle difference... by clock (4.00 / 2) #42 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:23:10 AM EST

...was that our "stimulus" was our money to begin with and that move was only slightly more pathetic and ham-handed than the AIG thing. tax credits and write-offs are also a joke. they are a cheap trick of numbers to make us feel good about doing things that make us easier to govern (paranoid? a little...but i think history makes me look good on this one). we should also note that write-offs and credits aren't a hand-out (like the stimulus check was).

the AIG bailout was supposed to "save the economy." the kind of cash they just dumped on the aforementioned junkets, etc makes me wonder if the economy was worth saving or if it can in fact be saved.

i smell something in the air...it's heavy regulation coming our way. and it's going to be damned near impossible to argue against it. the times, they are a changin'.

_{Clock is right. [nt] --vorheesleatherface}

[ Parent ]

Regulation? Don't count on it. Not in our lifetime by greyrat (4.00 / 2) #46 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:55:40 AM EST

We just gave the Treasury Secretary three quarters of a trillion dollars to do with whatever he pleases. And we gave away all kinds of additional money to special interests, and other pet projects in order to give away the three quarters of a trillion. With the bail out having been passed -- and passed the way it was -- we are virtually guaranteed more of the same for the foreseeable future. Since Congress managed to get to the cows teat with only a minimum amount of resistance, I'm pretty sure they'll just keep yanking on it until it's dry. That's why my retirement plan involves a length of rope and a rafter in the basement. If we'd actually had an uprising of the populace and were still debating if the bail out should even occur, I'd have more hope for a different future. Sure, the world economy ~~would~~might have melted down, but that's what's needed at this point to make a substantive change. Economic transactions still have to occur -- whether or not they are managed by the current system or something that gets built from the rubble of a real collapse of the current system. I see no regulation coming out of this mess. Or at best some pathetic "fox guarding the hen house" token "efforts" to lull the plebes into a false sense of security.

[ Parent ]

i'm ALMOST there with you... by clock (2.00 / 0) #51 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:24:49 AM EST

...but i would argue that without regulation, the system cannot survive. the system is an organism and its one true instinct is survival. it would be fascinating to see it keel over, but too many have too much to lose. as cynical as we may be, we'd have to agree that any of the half-literate greedheads in question would choose to lose an arm over losing his life. and that's the decision that lies ahead. but if it's going to happen, we'll have a shit-ton of one-term congress critters and a one-term president for sure.

not holding my breath...just looking at the spread.

_{Clock is right. [nt] --vorheesleatherface}

[ Parent ]

: I'm not holding my breath either, by greyrat (4.00 / 1) #53 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:54:43 AM EST

But this will continue until the plebes are broke or dead or both. For example, Paulson can buy paper from Lehman Brothers at full price, hold it for a little while, and the sell them back to the SAME INSTITUTION at half price. He's pissing away what should have been your money. And that transaction I just described? It's outside the of 700 billion dollar bailout. IT WILL NEVER END. Oh, and the CEO of Lehman -- a bankrupt company? He gets to keep his 60 million plus 250 million he was compensated with over the last seven years, while his bank was going into the tank. I want that job.

[ Parent ]

plus by cam (4.00 / 1) #59 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:23:59 PM EST

I didnt get a stimulus check. I earn too much and dont organize my family in a politically acceptable manner (ie dont have kids).

cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]

just to be clear by R343L (4.00 / 1) #55 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:05:59 PM EST

This wasn't a junket for the executives. It was apparently a reward for AIG's top independent insurance agents:

Spokesman Nicholas Ashooh said the event had been scheduled a year earlier by AIG's American General life insurance subsidiary as a way to reward independent agents who sell the company's products.

This isn't a bunch of executives at AIG responsible for its failure, fiddling while things burn. Surely there were executives there, but you'd expect some inspirational speeches from the higher ups.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

you know, by webwench (2.00 / 0) #61 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:34:26 PM EST

it's not a factor of whether the junket was for the executives or for someone else. The fact is that we, the people, just bailed out a private company who apparently weren't hurting that badly.

I work for a company that's hurting, and we don't even have pizza socials, you know? And you don't see us over in the halls of Congress with a begging cup.

^{Getting more attention than you since 1998. Ya ya!}
[ Parent ]

it is important by R343L (4.00 / 1) #63 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:42:29 PM EST

You said this was a junket for executives ... it's not. The demagoging around it has been the same way. I think people are less likely to see this as something to get upset about (and thus be distracted from larger issues) if it's pointed out this is a party for sales people ... and there are a lot of sales people in the US who like their little parties.

As for the failing part and spending money .. eh, companies do stupid things including spend money badly. The division in question isn't actually one causing the failure -- AIG's regular insurance subsidiaries were apparently doing fine (and for contractual and various state law reasons their funds can't be used to prop up the failing parts). I'm not that surprised someone at the head of a life insurance subsidiary would think it "ok" to spend money -- his division was probably profitable. If anyone thought about it at all which seems more likely.

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

one point only by webwench (2.00 / 0) #64 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:58:15 PM EST

I did not say this was 'a junket for executives'. I said (and I quote):

"if these execs can get these salaries and spend this kind of money on junkets and fluff, they don't need taxpayer money, period."

If the executives of the company did not spend (or approve the spending of) this amount of money in a time of (we are told) great financial concerns, concerns so great that the very economy would be at risk unless we forked over $700 billion, then who did?

^{Getting more attention than you since 1998. Ya ya!}
[ Parent ]

the narrative here by MillMan (4.00 / 1) #69 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 05:06:20 PM EST

is equivalent to the narrative for welfare payments. Welfare is given with the intent to ensure survival - if someone on welfare has enough money to indulge in non-necessities, they are considered unworthy of receiving welfare payments. That is what AIG is doing. As webwench noted, her company isn't engaging in such non-necessities, not even pizza, which costs three or four orders of magnitude less than what AIG spent on this trip.

It looks like you are arguing for the equivalent of a more compassionate approach (I'll call it enhanced corporate welfare). I can understand this with poor people when I believe our economic system cannot allocate resources properly by design. The AIG money, though, is giving more money to the people already receiving a disproportionally large piece of our economy's spoils.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

I'm arguing for perspective and autonomy by R343L (2.00 / 0) #70 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 07:33:07 PM EST

(Now woken from unhelpful sleep. And grouchy. Be prepared.)

If you get an unemployment check, they don't take it away if you buy booze (indeed they would never know). Yes, you can't buy "unworthy" things with WIC or food stamps or rental support but that's not the only kind of welfare. To some degree we as a society support autonomy even for people who are very poor and who many people see as somewhat worthless.

If I give a bum a dollar, I have no way (legal or ethical) to force him to spend it on food or shelter. If he spends it on alcohol that is now his business. I can choose not to give him more money (or not to have given in the first place), but I don't get to take away his autonomy.

With a corporation, it's admittedly a bit different, but we didn't put a giant clause on the bailout saying "you can only pay for wages, regular salaries and necessary repairs to equipment from now on without prior approval". We gave them money with very few conditions, so they are legally at least free to do what they want. They are still autonomous -- we may have given them a lot of money, but we didn't nationalize them.

Yes, politically, it is a stupid move for a subsidiary to have such an event. But to me it's only guaranteed to be stupid from the political / demogogic fallout. It's possible it's stupid regardless, but it's also possible the management of the AIG subsidiary was afraid of losing some number of agents or going back on their promises or whatever. They can have good reasons that we don't agree with.

And then there is perspective issue. This just isn't that big a deal. The real money that is going to get wasted is AIG somehow making good on all the CDSes they issued. That should never have been allowed to be issued (how the fuck does the market for CDSes backing mortgage securities get to be five times the outstanding value of the mortgages?!) I don't care about a measly $500,000 in "wasted" money. Out of $70 billion? When Congress has already approved nearly $800? And already paid to bailout Fannie & and Freddie? And the Federal Reserve is going to print money for loans? I just can't bring myself to care much beyond "eh, perhaps it's best you don't do that again. Or at least hold it at the Holiday Inn."

Oh, and of course it's welfare. Ideally, in my world, Congress could "fix" the financial disaster without bailing out any companies, but apparently that isn't in the cards.

Rachael

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

: Yes, you can take it away. by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #74 Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:46:13 AM EST

When ~~bums~~ the less-fortunate accost me on the sidewalk and ask for money for food, I will occasionally buy them food. Have I received the stink-eye for this? Yes, but if they weren't lying to me, they got some damned food.
You can see this writ large for how I'd apply my philosophy to this bailout.
This coomenat has be n soidnsord by hurricanbe ice malt liqur
[ Parent ]

this is a good point by garlic (2.00 / 0) #78 Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 04:43:01 PM EST

when managment didn't like our overhead costs, the first thing that got cut were things like christmas parties, and paying for the sandwiches at our mandatory lunchtime meetings.

If AIG new it was in trouble, it shouldn't have done this. If AIG didn't know they were in trouble, a lot of levels of management MUST be sacked.

[ Parent ]

Fuck the motherfuckers by theboz (4.00 / 1) #44 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:47:52 AM EST

I'm mostly there with you. However, I'm reserving any judgment on these types of things until after the election. The bailout was probably only passed because the Bush administration was threatening Congress with implementing martial law. The people who went to that spa vacation were probably not executives that caused the financial crisis, so while it does suck, I'd rather focus on the top and work the way down. Personally, I think the CEO of AIG should have all of his property seized, auctioned off, and the money go back to the government to pay down the bailout to whatever degree it can. Put him and his family in section 8 housing. Do this to all executives at every failing or failed company, and in particular those that are being bailed out.

There are plenty of options that we should explore. I just don't think we have people in the government right now who would be willing to do what is necessary. That may change next year. Obama and the Democrats are a little more sympathetic to the American people than the Republicans. History also proves that if the American people get pissed off, they do what we say (e.g. FDR and the New Deal) or risk the collapse of the nation. I think we may get to a point like that, at which time Obama has to act like FDR or the nation spirals into collapse.

- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

threatening Congress with martial law by webwench (4.00 / 1) #62 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 12:36:20 PM EST

That might explain some of the 'martial law' rumblings that were floating around the seamier sides of the internet a few days ago. Do you have any other info about it?

^{Getting more attention than you since 1998. Ya ya!}
[ Parent ]

: It's on teh yuot00b by theboz (4.00 / 2) #67 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:38:07 PM EST

I don't know how to embed Youtube on this anymore, so I think this will be one example.

((http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8))
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

I would love to care by StackyMcRacky (4.00 / 1) #66 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 04:01:16 PM EST

But in the last month, I've been hit by a hurricane, been without power for an extended amount of time, spent a day on the toilet with my head hovering over a bowl, and watched my poor baby boy vomit his little guts out.

I don't have the energy to deal with any of the economic crap that has been a long time coming because people in this country are too irresponsible to handle money. Yes, not executives, not politicians, but the regular people.

Government employees by jimgon (4.00 / 2) #71 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:12:04 PM EST

You have a problem with government employees spending $23k on spa treatments.

Yes. by blixco (4.00 / 1) #72 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:26:28 PM EST

---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

I think I can understand that by jimgon (4.00 / 3) #73 Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 10:31:45 PM EST

Naturally as a public employee myself, making a fat $300 per annum, I absolutely have to agree with you. What these asses just blew on their getaway could fund my school department's special education transportation budget for a year. My town's fire department is run off around $300k. Massachusetts is warning about potential cuts in aid to municipalities and education while the Federal Government nationalizes an insurance company that pisses money down the drain. Not that I'm bitter that we may have to cut our school budget with resulting layoffs while AIG execs get massages and hookers.

[ Parent ]

Don't forget beer. And monocle polish! by greyrat (4.00 / 1) #76 Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:23:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Those are must haves by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #77 Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 01:39:34 PM EST

Those are not like to haves.

[ Parent ]

I am dead serious. | 78 comments (78 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback


Make a new account
Username:
Password: