Author Topic: Senator suggests AIG execs should kill themselves (Read 3024 times)

Magog · « **on:** March 17, 2009, 07:49:51 AM »

â€“ Grassley: AIG execs should commit suicide

In this May 22, 2008 file photo, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa is seen on AP â€“ In this May 22, 2008 file photo, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington. â€¦

IOWA CITY, Iowa â€“ 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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_go_co/grassley_aig

Magog · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2009, 07:51:39 AM »

I'm glad to see at least one Senator is making some sense...

TheSarge · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2009, 07:52:03 AM »

Reall classy there Senator.

NOT!!!

TheSarge · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2009, 07:52:41 AM »

Quote from: Magog on March 17, 2009, 07:51:39 AM

I'm glad to see at least one Senator is making some sense...

Ummm...exactly how is advocating suicide "making some sense"?

Magog · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2009, 07:56:15 AM »

Quote

"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 execs are responsible for causing the company to tank, then asking for bailout money, so WE can fund them to tank again. I am not advocating suicide, but they should at least resign. Why should we pay them for screwing up?

thundley4 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 17, 2009, 08:01:00 AM »

Quote from: Magog on March 17, 2009, 07:56:15 AM

The execs are responsible for causing the company to tank, then asking for bailout money, so WE can fund them to tank again. I am not advocating suicide, but they should at least resign. Why should we pay them for screwing up?

It seems to me that the whole welfare system is nothing more than paying them to continue failing, so I don't see much difference between that and the AIG bailout.

TheSarge · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2009, 08:01:51 AM »

Quote from: Magog on March 17, 2009, 07:56:15 AM

The execs are responsible for causing the company to tank,

How?

Quote

then asking for bailout money, so WE can fund them to tank again. I am not advocating suicide, but they should at least resign.

How about instead you put the blame where it belongs...with the federal government. They came up with the bright idea of bailouts...they were the ones that forced the banks and lending institutions to start accepting extremely risky loans and credit aps.

Quote

Why should we pay them for screwing up?

You could do better?

Lord Undies · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2009, 08:14:37 AM »

Where is the applause for the fantastic years when no one knew AIG existed because there was no reason to notice? The economy tanks, thanks to many years of socialistc/democrats planning, and we are all victims. AIG's executives had as much control over the events that lead to this as ol' Mrs. Barnes down the street had over her now-worthless 401K.....none.

The free market is blameless because it was kidnapped. Washington, D.C. (politics; democrats in general) is the criminal element in this financial mess. I'll listen when someone starts the ball rolling to indict Barney Franks and his ilk. Until then I will advocate for the board members of AIG take another round of bonuses. I'd rather the money be in private hands than around the dirty paws of democrats.

asdf2231 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2009, 08:23:06 AM »

The company was contractually OBLIGATED to pay that money.

If they try to stiff what they legally owed people the lawsuits filed by people to claim what they were owed would cost many times what the bonus payments were.

The government either needs to shut the **** up and stay hands off or it needs to take the businesses over so they can dictate policy.

Whats happening now is bullcrap.

Baruch Menachem · « **Reply #9 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:25:13 AM »

Quote from: Magog on March 17, 2009, 07:56:15 AM

The execs are responsible for causing the company to tank, then asking for bailout money, so WE can fund them to tank again. I am not advocating suicide, but they should at least resign. Why should we pay them for screwing up?

If Seppuku is the reward for really bad screw ups, I am willing to pay for Jaimie Gorlick's Katana. Barny Frank's too.

Since the government owns the thing now, they really do need to fire these jackasses and replaces them with other jackassess. That will make a big difference, I am sure.

Better to just break the thing into tiny pieces and sell them off. Too big to fail is to dangerous.

Hawkgirl · « **Reply #10 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:34:07 AM »

What a disaster...The gov't's intervention is only compounding it.

DixieBelle · « **Reply #11 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:40:16 AM »

We cannot recover until we hit bottom. The govt padding the bottom is only prolonging this mess.

Tess · « **Reply #12 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:54:47 AM »

Quote from: asdf2231 on March 17, 2009, 08:23:06 AM

The company was contractually OBLIGATED to pay that money.

If they try to stiff what they legally owed people the lawsuits filed by people to claim what they were owed would cost many times what the bonus payments were.

The government either needs to shut the **** up and stay hands off or it needs to take the businesses over so they can dictate policy.

Whats happening now is bullcrap.

Okay, yes.

I think it is REALLY easy to say "Oh they are paying out bonuses! Fry them!" when in reality this is probably money that was ALREADY EARNED by their management. Are the bonuses high? More thank likely, but when you are talking about a company like AIG they are just going to be that way. That is how you draw the competitive field you need to make your company succeed. I think some of the failure is due to bad investments but I also think that there is more than just one factor that is playing into some of these financial companies having issues. The Ponzi schemes that have been uncovered definitely play a role as does the fact that Govt. has played FAR too much of a role in who should get home loans along with other bloated programs where they were trying to control the kind of market they want. (in other words, trying to level the playing field when in areas that just aren't conducive to it.) THis is one reason why I am so against bailouts. 1. you CAN'T control what free enterprise does with the money at all times. And, honestly, they were probably starting with something they knew was necessary and quite frankly was MINOR change in the entirety of the full amount they were given. 2. You can't make businesses be responsible for their failures if you are there to bail them out when they start crying and say it is going to ruin the economy. It is like a child crying huge tears every time something isn't fair or they don't win in a game and you run around trying to make them a winner, when in reality they NEED to fail in order to learn from their mistakes. 3. You don't give businesses the incentive to succeed when they know that no matter what "Big Brotha" will be there to make sure they stay in business.

By the way, did you know that a large portion of these management bonus are going to people who have been in Obama's back pocket and have donated hundreds of thousands to his campaign? Honestly, I think his "outrage" is a mask. I don't think he cares one wit about it.

TheSarge · « **Reply #13 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:59:44 AM »

Quote from: Lord Undies on March 17, 2009, 08:14:37 AM

Where is the applause for the fantastic years when no one knew AIG existed because there was no reason to notice? The economy tanks, thanks to many years of socialistc/democrats planning, and we are all victims. AIG's executives had as much control over the events that lead to this as ol' Mrs. Barnes down the street had over her now-worthless 401K.....none.

The free market is blameless because it was kidnapped. Washington, D.C. (politics; democrats in general) is the criminal element in this financial mess. I'll listen when someone starts the ball rolling to indict Barney Franks and his ilk. Until then I will advocate for the board members of AIG take another round of bonuses. I'd rather the money be in private hands than around the dirty paws of democrats.

Post of the day IMHO.

Eupher · « **Reply #14 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:02:21 AM »

It's politically expedient for Obama to be "outraged" at the AIG bonuses because so many people are outraged.

It's his "connection" to the sheeple.

asdf2231 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:03:07 AM »

Quote from: Tess on March 17, 2009, 09:54:47 AM

Okay, yes.

I think it is REALLY easy to say "Oh they are paying out bonuses! Fry them!" when in reality this is probably money that was ALREADY EARNED by their management. Are the bonuses high? More thank likely, but when you are talking about a company like AIG they are just going to be that way. That is how you draw the competitive field you need to make your company succeed. I think some of the failure is due to bad investments but I also think that there is more than just one factor that is playing into some of these financial companies having issues. The Ponzi schemes that have been uncovered definitely play a role as does the fact that Govt. has played FAR too much of a role in who should get home loans along with other bloated programs where they were trying to control the kind of market they want. (in other words, trying to level the playing field when in areas that just aren't conducive to it.) THis is one reason why I am so against bailouts. 1. you CAN'T control what free enterprise does with the money at all times. And, honestly, they were probably starting with something they knew was necessary and quite frankly was MINOR change in the entirety of the full amount they were given. 2. You can't make businesses be responsible for their failures if you are there to bail them out when they start crying and say it is going to ruin the economy. It is like a child crying huge tears every time something isn't fair or they don't win in a game and you run around trying to make them a winner, when in reality they NEED to fail in order to learn from their mistakes. 3. You don't give businesses the incentive to succeed when they know that no matter what "Big Brotha" will be there to make sure they stay in business.

By the way, did you know that a large portion of these management bonus are going to people who have been in Obama's back pocket and have donated hundreds of thousands to his campaign? Honestly, I think his "outrage" is a mask. I don't think he cares one wit about it.

Good points all.

Bluesuiter-Retired · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:59:20 AM »

Quote from: thundley4 on March 17, 2009, 08:01:00 AM

It seems to me that the whole welfare system is nothing more than paying them to continue failing, so I don't see much difference between that and the AIG bailout.

I don't seem much difference between welfare and bail outs. The only real difference is the price tag.

Bluesuiter-Retired · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:04:59 PM »

On Fox[y] and Friends this morning they were talking to "the judge" and he stated that the CEO hired by the obama administration after the federal government purchased 40 percent of AIG, has already gone over the contracts and compared it with the language in the bailout bill.

AIG is on solid ground to pay those bonuses, whether we like it or not, which I do not.

The democrat-controlled congress wrote the bailout bill with Geithner's guidance while President Bush was still in office.

TheSarge · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2009, 01:55:57 PM »

Here is Mr. Libby...the Obama Administration hired CEO of AIG.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/03/che.php

Eupher · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2009, 03:17:45 PM »

Point of order:

the article points toward the above photo, but says this:

Quote

Inter alia, the Times article reports the division is now run by Gerry Pasciucco, a former vice chairman of Morgan Stanley. On the left, you can see a recent photograph of Mr. Pasciucco from a party in Belle Haven, sporting a Che Guevara t-shirt, blue blazer and handkerchief, with some sort of sporting drink I'm unable to identify (possibly a mojito?).

Gerry Pasciucco is the communist wearing the offensive t-shirt in question.

debk · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2009, 04:44:34 PM »

Quote from: Bluesuiter-Retired on March 17, 2009, 12:04:59 PM

On Fox[y] and Friends this morning they were talking to "the judge" and he stated that the CEO hired by the obama administration after the federal government purchased 40 percent of AIG, has already gone over the contracts and compared it with the language in the bailout bill.

AIG is on solid ground to pay those bonuses, whether we like it or not, which I do not.

The democrat-controlled congress wrote the bailout bill with Geithner's guidance while President Bush was still in office.

The only way that AIG could have possibly avoided paying the bonuses would have been to take bankruptcy. Then they could possibly have re-written the contracts with senior executives....or not had any contracts at all with them.

As it is....AIG is contracturally required to pay those bonuses....or risk lawsuits that AIG is sure to lose.

We, the taxpayers...are now obligated to pay them by default of "owning" the majority stock of the company.

-------------

Has anyone wondered if the Democrats... in the last two years of being "in power"....have managed to create this mess we are in...so that "their" president could come in and rescue the country....thus keeping the democrats in control for a looooooooong time?

Or is that too much "tin foil" thinking?

vlad335 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2009, 05:05:12 PM »

Quote from: Tess on March 17, 2009, 09:54:47 AM

By the way, did you know that a large portion of these management bonus are going to people who have been in Obama's back pocket and have donated hundreds of thousands to his campaign? Honestly, I think his "outrage" is a mask. I don't think he cares one wit about it.

Haha! Spot on! Obama and the Dims knew about this bonus structure at AIG. Now they have to feign outrage since knowledge of these bonuses leaked. With the help of the media, the American people are playing right into the Democratâ€™s shell game too. It would be intersting to see how these bonuses were dispersed and to whom. Follow the money!

And all we heard for years and years is that the GOP is the party for the rich!

Tess Anderson · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2009, 08:04:35 PM »

It's faux outrage, Grassley was speaking in hyperbole, but guess only Barack Hussein Obama and his cult are approved to do that.

Quote from: Eupher on March 17, 2009, 10:02:21 AM

It's politically expedient for Obama to be "outraged" at the AIG bonuses because so many people are outraged.

It's his "connection" to the sheeple.

Yeah. He has to play left-wing populist, too effective to expect him to take a pass on that. But if the One REALLY wants to make this stand, he and Dodd ought to pay back the 100k or so AIG contributed to their campaigns. Won't happen.

Eupher · « **Reply #23 on:** March 18, 2009, 08:21:53 AM »

Well, regarding the AIG meltdown, I think it's reasonable to conclude that this is NOT a slow news day.

With His Holiness now clearly a part of the entire goatrope, kinda wonderin' how much longer it'll be before the MSM actually does something besides worship him.

thundley4 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 18, 2009, 08:26:10 AM »

Should everyone that got money from AIG in the past also give back that money? I wonder if there could have been reasons for the continued bailout of AIG?

News:

Author Topic: Senator suggests AIG execs should kill themselves (Read 3024 times)