the country never wanted the bail out in the first place (4.00 / 5)

just put them in FDIC receivership with all the other basket cases.

---

by: AliceDem @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 15:11:59 PM CDT

That's a damn good point (4.00 / 4)

Worth remembering also that House progressives tried to stop the bailout, only to have Obama intervene to ensure that bailout went through.

Obama has owned this bailout since day one - and that was in October 2008.

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 16:02:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

. (0.00 / 0)

Poll them again in 3 weeks and see just how outraged they are.

---

by: NeonBlack @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 15:15:23 PM CDT

While you may be right (4.00 / 3)

how does this constant refrain help?  

Many of us here agree with your (seeming) point that the bailouts were bad.  If 59% of the country can be (rightly) outraged by this then it is entirely possible that a large portion of those people can come to see the flaws in the whole bailout project - or finally be pushed into acting on their frustration.  

Persistently claiming that there's no point in talking and nothing to be done is, in no way, actually helpful to the larger project that (it seems) you'd like to see undertaken.  

---

by: JBen @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 15:27:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bullshit (4.00 / 6)

The outrage is phony, imputed by so-called progressives and the corporate media onto "real people", who actually aren't really bothered by million dollar bonuses going to execs at failed institutions that taxpayers own.

I think that's how the talking point goes. Let me consult the Obama-right-or-wrong blogs to make sure.

---

by: david mizner @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 15:32:51 PM CDT

Why are people outraged? (4.00 / 6)

Here's an explanation I think might have some staying power.

The bonus payouts are an in-your-face, undeniable indication that AIG is not operating under conditions even slightly resembling bankruptcy.

Lots of people around the country now either have been affected or have an acquaintance who has been affected by some company's bankruptcy. We all know that most of the employees of companies that are going bankrupt all around the country are not getting a fair shake. They're being fired on a day's notice, with the company saying they couldn't give the requisite 60 day notice because it would have jeopardized the search for outside capital. They're seeing their final paychecks bounce. They're finding out that they aren't automatically entitled to compensation for their remaining sick days or remaining vacation days.

Of all the companies that have gone bankrupt in the last 6 months, everyone knows that the companies that have failed most spectacularly are the financial industry giants. Everyone knows that the only reason these giants haven't been forced through the technical procedures of real bankruptcy is that the Federal Government has bailed them out. The bonus payouts make it very clear that not only has the government bailed out these companies, it's done it with no strings attached. If the government can't even treat the employees of AIG the same way employees of every other bankrupt company in the country has been treated, then it's pretty clear that the government is being controlled by AIG and the rest of the financial industry, not the other way around.

What people want is for these companies to be put through bankruptcy or its equivalent. What people don't want is for the government to act like a subsidiary of the financial industry.

---

by: MadScientist @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 15:59:30 PM CDT

What's most remarkable to me (4.00 / 4)

is that there's a significantly greater number outraged voters among Democrats than among either Republicans or Independents, even though the bonuses went down under the explicit insistence of our Democratic President's economic team.

It seems that Democrats out in those hinterlands called America have a strange point of view about what the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for. Where'd they get it into their silly hysterical heads that it was the party of the middle class?

But forget about all that, OK?

Ha, ha, isn't it funny when those Republican rubes out in Kansas and other icky hicky places vote against their economic interests?

Ha, ha!

---

by: frankly0 @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 16:45:33 PM CDT

I suppose Al Giordano would say that 59% are only "poutraged" (4.00 / 1)

"Poutrage" being outrage without the pitchfork.
:-)

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

---

by: metamars @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 17:57:28 PM CDT

Diversionary tactics (0.00 / 0)

Sure, I'm pissed about the bonuses. But let's get a friggin grip here. These bonuses are a HUGE diversion from the real problem and the bonuses account for .005 percent of $30 billion. So, in a way, it is "faux" outrage because it diverts from what should be the focus:

AIG used taxpayer money to pay off its counterparties (Deutsche, Goldman, et al) at 100%. Why? And we aren't even certain the list of companies AIG issued two days ago is complete.

Second, AIG said over and over up until the day the government first stepped in to save the company that it was fully capitalized; that they had the money to pay off their liabilities. They also lied about their initial involvement in CDOs.

Now, finally, instead of getting red-faced over getting back the bonuses, let's look at what can be legally done to claw them back by reviewing AIG's contractual obligations.

I just really think it's wasted energy, time and focus to continue getting lathered about these bonuses in light of the much bigger problem.

Finally, Tim Geithner absolutely did the right thing by making the bonuses issue voluntary in early TARP proposals, because the bigger problem of frozen lending/credit by the banks far outweighed the bonus issue. Blaming him (or Larry Summers) for this mess simply because they don't hew far enough to the left is also diversion from the bigger problem of lack of SEC oversight and enforcement of questionable financial instruments and their marketing.

---

by: mabelle55 @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 20:20:05 PM CDT

If Geithner had done anything so far to unfreeze the markets (0.00 / 0)

the bonus payouts wouldn't be such a big deal.

You're right, the bigger problem is getting the credit markets moving, and preferably doing so without the government buying up all the toxic assets at face value.

What has Geithner done to accomplish that so far?

Geithner seems to be treating the problems in the markets as 90% a crisis of confidence. Bring confidence back and the assets will no longer be toxic, the banks won't really be insolvent, and it won't cost the government a thing in the end. But, we don't want all that talent that drove the Bush expansion to leave, so we can't do anything to really threaten their compensation packages.

The problem is that Geithner's almost certainly wrong: the problem is likely 75% insolvency and only 25% a crisis of confidence. And the reason for the insolvency is the "talent" of the people getting these bonuses. Under those conditions, there's no reason to keep that "talent" around: the people who really believed in all the financial wizardry are precisely the wrong people to get us out of it. All they, and Geithner, really want to do is restore the system so they can continue their wizardry.

Those people need a career change, and the sooner the better.

---

by: MadScientist @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 22:34:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]