AIG question

News about the bonuses to AIG executives has been annoying me all day. I don't understand about these so-called contracts they seem to have. I understand a contract as an agreement between two parties: one does something, the other one pays. Surely those contracts don't say these people get paid, lavishly, for running the company into the ground; for creating losses; for doing stupid things. Why are these people still employed, let alone getting bonuses? I'd like to see those contracts. Liddy, the government appointed CEO is worried about retaining  talented workers. They shouldn't be retained. They should be fired for malfeasance, at the very least. With talent like this you can be out of business in no time at all.

Comments

[Grace]

Amen, Ruthe. We're living in a world where up is down, backward is forward, black is white. It sounds like Wonderland, but it certainly isn't wonderful.

[Alice]

I'll bet you'd find very very few people who would disagree with you on this one, Ruthe!!!! What ever happened to good common sense; doesn't even take a college degree! I'm ticked off as well. Maybe something will get done about it; I haven't given up hope yet.

[Mage Bailey]

I like the idea of Obama getting the bonus money back. Us small folk on the bottom have just seen our retirements vanish, our home worth's decrease to tiny fractions of their inflated selves, and say to ourselves that this recession is really another depression. We haven't given up hope, but we no longer read our brokerage reports.

[Karen]

From Steve Rhodes' Chicago-based blog, the Beachwood Reporter (http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/:

"I'm outraged too about the $165 million in bonuses to AIG executives, but tell me again then - and I know the analogy isn't perfect - but tell me again why I shouldn't be outraged over the $7.7 billion for 8,570 earmarks in the president's budget."