Goldman Sachs & AIG - Bailout Money Going to Bonuses

Guess what? Must see ABC news clip.

All that bailout money needed so desperately by Wall Street it's getting used as bonuses for their executives.

No one wants to address this issue. Are we completely a sleep here in the USA?

Is it just me or is this ok. They are saying in the news clip that the only way to keep good people around is to pay them bonuses.

What good people? I thought they were failing and needed bailout money.

They have spent more in bailout money for bonuses then the entire auto industry is looking to get.

cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com...



[edit on 18-12-2008 by Realtruth]

The so-called 'Bail-out' was re-engineered to allow 'retention' bonuses. They simply changed the nomenclature of the bonus and thus were allowed to do what we knew they were in tending to do with it all along..., whatever they want.

Americans now have to accept that this is 'not their money' anymore. We owe it in taxes - by fiat; it's theirs - because they say so.

Still think the Fed is 'American'? It's not. It's corporate. Their loyalty - like most in the wall-street stage play is corporate - not national.

I can't believe more people have not commented on this topic.

Maybe everything is just the way it should be and only a few people are seeing this as wrong.

I'm not surprised one bit. These corporate vultures need to be brought down. The whole american government is just a big ponzi scheme.

reply to post by Realtruth


What would you like them to say? We all know that these people are scumbags and will do no good. Sadly the world as we know it will change soon, I hate to be one of those people that says they feel it but I do. You can read it on the internet or talk to any of your friends, people realize life must change in some way because it isn't working how it currently is.

The problem is we are not yet at that breaking point that turns the masses into masses instead of prisoners.

Sorry for the sky is falling rant. I normally try and avoid those.

People should not have voted for legislators who supported the rash bailout plans implemented before the 2008 elections. I voted against the senator that supported it. Maybe it isn't the correct way to address this in some eyes but it would have be a powerful statement if those going against the will of most citizens did not get reelected. What good is experience in Congress if it is being used to make a select few rich and for special interests only. The days of for the people seems to be over.

edit: sp

[edit on 12/18/2008 by roadgravel]

I see Goldman Sachs are also reducing their tax liability too.

rawstory.com...

Bonuses ???? That is just crazy. I was reading a good artical on cnbc about these bonuses and some were recieving 15X their annual salary in bonuses.
They just handed this industry the money, and they make the auto indusrty crawl before they even help out. I know the big exec at the 3 are part of the problem, BUT you didn't start hearing of problem UNTIL oil speculations started RIGHT. Am I the only one seeing this???? Oil went sky high then everyone started buying fuel eff cars and the Big 3 lost their butts. Make Exxon, BP give them a loan, they had a part to play in this crisis.

Sorry I blame alot of these current problems on the oil companies.

Originally posted by roadgravel
People should not have voted for legislators who supported the rash bailout plans implemented before the 2008 elections. I voted against the senator that supported it. [...]

in my SC precinct, the voters overwhelmingly returned the congress/senate persons which (imho; Stupidly) voted for the bailout/TARP funds. The threat of voting against someone
is - at best a hollow threat~ in their eyes `
if the anti-vote gives you solice, then so-be-it... but the threat no longer has any persuasion or force to the incumbant office-holder !


Maxmars, has a real truth explaination, read it and weep....

not only can the elites eliminate the word 'bonus' for the term 'retention',
but if push-come-to-shove -> the businesses lawyers will argue that pre-existing "contracts" covering Compensation cannot be equated as 'Bonuses' ---> and ther is 100s of years of 'Contract Law' to back up their position...
a position which says that even IF the CEO led corporation actually makes money via 'bailout' money---then the CEO is Entitled to compensation above his/her payroll, for the additional monies the corp realised from whatever source.

The sad thing is the media HAS to play along. I bet most of them are fuming but they gotta just smile and say ........whatever they are told

Imagine a world where the media reported on story's like this accurately and started really railing these banking executives, imagine they were rationale in their response to the bailouts going toward bonuses and that they actually decided to point the blame of this mess going to the very people who benefited on the way up and then benefited again during the bailout. Imagine the media not calling for "more regulation" but actually regulators who do there job! You know what you would get? A LARGE RIOT w/ guns. So instead you get a trumped up version of the national enquirer in the sense that certain ideas and perspectives that are acurate and at the backbone of the crisis MUST BE IGNORED in order to keep civil unrest from erupting....and of course keeping a shred on confidence in the banks

Originally posted by St Udio
in my SC precinct, the voters overwhelmingly returned the congress/senate persons which (imho; Stupidly) voted for the bailout/TARP funds. The threat of voting against someone
is - at best a hollow threat~ in their eyes `
if the anti-vote gives you solice, then so-be-it... but the threat no longer has any persuasion or force to the incumbant office-holder !

That is why I wish people would have not voted for. I know these legislators do not fear the talk. That's why I voted against my senator. I talked to others who are concerned and mad but I suppose they voted as usual. Some people will not learn a lesson or just don't care about the state of affairs enough to act.