Perpetuating falsehood, Wall Street Journal's Fund claimed "AIG bonuses ... were in the stimulus bill"
SUMMARY: On Fox & Friends, John Fund advanced the Republican falsehood that Democrats created the right for AIG to pay bonuses by passing the economic recovery bill. In fact, the recovery bill did not create the right for AIG -- or any company -- to pay bonuses. Rather, AIG reportedly disclosed that it had entered into agreements to pay these bonuses more than a year ago, the Bush Treasury Department approved of the AIG bailout with this agreement in place, and the relevant provision in the recovery act actually restricted the ability of companies receiving money from TARP to award bonuses in the future.
During the March 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund advanced the Republican falsehood that Democrats created the right for American International Group (AIG) to pay bonuses by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Fund asked, "Do you really want to trust the same government that approved the AIG bonuses knowing that they were in the stimulus bill? ... Are you really going to trust that same government to be the overlord for executive compensation?" In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the recovery bill did not create the right for AIG -- or any company -- to pay bonuses. Rather, AIG reportedly disclosed that it had entered into agreements to pay these bonuses more than a year ago, the Bush Treasury Department approved of the AIG bailout with this agreement in place, and the relevant provision in the recovery act actually restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to award bonuses in the future.
Media Matters has documented numerous other examples of media similarly misrepresenting the economic recovery bill's provision concerning executive compensation.
From the March 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
K.T. McFARLAND (former GOP U.S. Senate candidate): The problem is, Wall Street has now moved to Washington. Goldman Sachs has left Wall Street, and they're now in Washington. And there is no Wall Street anymore; it's now run out of the Treasury Department. There's no free market, so all this notion of appropriate compensation for risks that they're taking -- that's just not going to happen anymore.
FUND: Do you really want to trust the same government that approved the AIG bonuses knowing that they were in the stimulus bill?
STEVE DOOCY (co-host): Right.
McFARLAND: Right.
FUND: And, by the way, no one read the stimulus bill --
McFARLAND: And tax-free, by the way.
FUND: -- but those who did knew it was in there. Are you really going to trust that same government to be the overlord for executive compensation?
DOOCY: Right.
FUND: Look, there is one thing worse than greedy Wall Street people, and that's Washington politicians who work for Wall Street people --
McFARLAND: Right.
FUND: -- trying to impose on them.
McFARLAND: Who take the bribes from Wall Street.
Also known as the GOP.
now be fair a bit. before becoming ny fed chairman was time geithner a wall street guy?
Chairmen of the Fed-NY actually. But so what? Bush's administration KNEW about the bonuses, and approved the plan with them in place, without a fuss. Geitner may have known about it, but he didn't write, or approve the legislation.
And besides, how many times have the RW mouthpieces tried to paint the Democrats as being hostile to business and industry. You can't have it both ways, just becasue poplism is against you know!
One if the party of big business, one is the party of the little guy. We KNOW who those parties are, even if the one now wants to trader places.
i know he was ny fed chairman, i was wondering what he had been doing before that.
believe me i was not defending, i was just playing devil's advocate.
And again we forget that Obama and Dodd got more money from AIG than McCain, Romney, etc.
Have links to back that up?
Try this.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000123
Oooohhh That link shut everyone up the last time it was used. Funny how facts work when democrats argue over AIG giving republicans money, huh? Everyone knows who gave the OK to let AIG pay those bonus's, and Bush has been long gone for months. You can only continue blaming him for so long (isn't that what is said about Clinton?).
Floyd, I dump equally on all culpable politicians, but I don't like intentionally misleading stuff.
If you want to blame anyone (or thing) for "allowing" AIG to pay those bonuses, blame legal contracts binded in a nation governed by the rule of law from our Constitution.
Yes, I understand how rule of law works. I think there are many who continue to complain about these bonus's don't know rule of law, or at least, don't want it to apply evenly. At this link there is a breakdown of companies and donations made at 2-year intervals for the last 20. You can click on AIG and see a varying pattern of donations. However, if you look close, it seems to follow precisely how AIG wanted the home loan business to be directed. They seem to be a smart bunch-- they will donate to whoever will benefit them the most at any given time. That's probably why they got the bonus's.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
the bonuses on past contracts is one issue, but it was the bush administration that insisted on a change that removed limits on future compensation.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/15/51431/166/59/673205
Does anyone else think that the AIG bonuses are a separate issue than CEO pay in general?
i see them as linked. and here is why.....because if a company succeeds then sure give bonuses and high pay to CEO's who do their job and do it correctly.
in this instance with AIG i don't think the bonuses should have been given nor should the CEO recieve any kind of high pay.
hell i don't get a bonus weather i do good or not. if i do good i keep my job, if not ill get canned.
I sorta thought that the general debate on CEO's, as discussed on HuffPost, DKos, etc, were about an across-the-board cap regardless of the company's health, etc.
well i was just giving my opinion. im not against givng them good salaries.....but there is a bit of a difference when your earning maybe a million dollars compared to raking in 50 million dollars.
In other words, other world, ya don't have a case, a clue or the slightest idea what the hell you're talkin' about on this or any other subject, so you're gonna try and pull the ol' DKos dodge in the hopes that nobody will notice
Nice try. I noticed. I always do. I always will. Get yourself a case and a clue or get used to it.
Always a pleasure.
So what's your opinion on AIG bonus's? Other than you don't like to allow opposing opinions?
With the notable exception of UAW Contracts.
OOkkkk biiig fella, keeeeep typing out either short, no-evidence-or-argument provided assertions or biiiig, condescening, mocking posts, big fella.
You mean like that one?
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.
Welcome to the party.
Hey, keep throwin' down the middle and I'll gladly keep smackin' off the Citgo Sign for ya, little coalition of the clueless cretin fella.
You're doin' most of the work. It's kinda hard not to knock your psychotic gop-slop nonsense outta the park. Yellowstone couldn't contain your clueless cretin crapolla, little fella.
Thanks for the link, I was not aware of this.
Nice try, oskie boy. Just which part of shrub was still President in September of 2008 continues to confound you, little factose-intolerant fella?
Try this: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/20/national-republican-senatorial-committee/Dodd-failed-to-halt-bailout-bonuses/
JLyon asked for a link regarding political contributions. I found one, didn't fit your model, so, in typical Coop fashion, you go after the messenger. JLyon's question had nothing to do with the bonuses and the culpability of Bush &/or Dodd in that matter.
If you check the link I think you can probably go back in history far enough to make your point, but in the meantime, I was addressing a question posed regarding contributions.
How much did G W receive in 2004 --- Something like $160,000. Presidential hedges from AIG to projected winners if you ask me. Does that mean President Obama owes his survival to AIG. Doubt it!!!! Bushie --- that's another question. Much more likely seeing as he was the Pres when we got into this mess.
DFlash45
corporations give to both parties because they want to keep influence. but who is it that does their bidding? the republicans. they know that a republican is far more likely to let business do what they want. how long have we heard from conservatives and people like limbaugh that the democrats are anti-business? of course, that is last weeks truth and now the truth is supposedly that it's the democrats who are all in favor of bonuses. there is a long and documented history of republicans attacking the idea of limiting executive compensation. but the media seems unable to come up with those quotes.
I was on FrontPage Magazine over the weekend. This is a favorite talking point over there. Dodd got $100k from AIG!...Go lord...so much money!!
Except it's ususaly covering many years...like a decade...so do some division..then factor in that even in a small state like Conneticut , campaign expenditures run around 8million dollars per cycle.
That $5k-$10k a cycle from different AIG employees...wow what a haul...
And again you fail to account for the fact that Shrub was in the White House when the gop-slop hit the fan in September of 2008 and provide no evidence of quid pro, dexie-dream.
Get yourself a case and a clue.
What was this in response to?
If you can't even remember what you posted, why should we try to?
How's your crusade going? Even if I couldn't remember, I can read. His response was so general that there's no way to know specifically what he's talking about.
Actually, it was in reply to the latest load of "sorta thoughts" ya tried to unload on Jbomb, but, now that you mention it, it could serve as an accurate answer for virtually all your psychotic slop on the subject, little fella.
dex....this is something that has happened since the days of Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic. this is not something at all new to the world.
::sigh:: you're all too right.
and those are just examples of some kind of representitive government, im not talking about the monarchies of Europe, Middle East, even Asia. those would produce examples at a ratio of at least 3 to 1.
Simple, $$ and power corrupts and nobody is immune. What is needed is to bring back stricter controls on trading debt ratios concerning these mortgage loans, so "we" the taxpayer aren't left holding the bag when the whole thing collapses. Those responsible need to be held accountable. And, that isn't happening.
In other words, it's time to re-regulate and pull the plug on reaganomics and the fraud that is shrub's sharecropper society.
Works for me.
Actually, you completely missed his point.
Is it your clueless-cretin contention that the point, DeminTX, was trying to make was this situation is a product of eight years of excessive government over-regulation of the markets on the part of bush and the gops, little factually-challenged fella?
Nice try. That's not the point he made. If it was the point he intended to make, then clearly, he's as clueless as you are, dexie-dream.
Always a pleasure.
Do you have to name-call to make a good, solid, well-reasoned point? Demin was making a point that power seems to corrupt regardless of what party you're affiliated. I like how you say "well if I missed his point, his point was stupid anyway."
better go hide under your bed. acorn is out to get you.
Who cares? Peaceful protests are fine and very much a staple of free society.
Given no denials then it must be true. Gov't funded agency meant to help the less priveleged neighborhoods is spending money to protest bonuses in rich neighborhoods. Makes real logical sense it does.
It's not a government-funded agency, at all. That's a huge overexagerration. What's new though?
Nice argument. No denial so the charge has to be true.
Money spent for demonstrations by the poor at AI officers homes in the town of Fairfield? And why not?
The City of Bridgeport provides a lot of services for the residents of Fairfield County, CT and other than the tax payers in Bridgeport, they pay little for this. The people of the poorest city in the county pay for most of the services.
Fairfield County has the 11th highest income rate in the country even though it contains the City of Bridgeport which is the one of the poorest and most highly taxed cities in the country.
Sorry, should have read "The people of the ONE OF THE poorest city in the county pay for most of the services."
Clearly, absence of evidence is proof of guilt in his bizarro world.
Maybe he should change his name to BizarroWorldlyMrR.
Don't hold your breath, king. Gops aren't big on facts or truth in advertising.
They practice the George Costanza, "Remember, Jerry. It's not a lie if you believe it." maxim in their own dark side, delusional way.
You have posted many stupid things. This is yet another of them.
dexteritasoo71418---Peaceful protests are fine and very much a staple of free society.
Yeah! They worked so well in the '60s. They got us out of a 'never ending war, based on lies'.
So what do you advocate when people oppose a war? Should they take the Bill Ayers route, or just stifle it?
Ok...so the Bush treasury dept approved the bonuses a year ago. Then this year the Obama treasury dept approved of the bonuses...with Geithner involved in both actions. Dodd didn't approve but knuckled under to the Obama administration to insert the amendment...which Pres.Obama signed into law.
Many here have railed over many articles that the $7-8 billion in earmarks was only about 2% of the appropriations bill...making it innocuous. Then along comes the AIG bonuses of about .001% of their bailout money...and oh the outrage.
This is nothing more than a circular, partisan firing squad. It doesn't matter to me if partisans want to spend their time arguing where to place the blame because in the end...neither side can duck the blame for crappy legislation.
The real issue is the out of control spending of our congress...and Pres.Bush and Pres.Obama.
The real elephant in the room is the lack of accountability by our feckless congressional and executive branch leaders...or more aptly described as non-leaders, with only two objectives...power and re-election.
I agree that there's plenty of blame to go around. What angers me is the hypocrisy of the right who now crow about the sanctity of contracts after spending last month breaking the contracts of the auto workers.
That's a 10-4 on the blame.
What about the hypocrisy of those on the left that supported billions of dollars in earmarks and now moan about a 100+ million in bonuses?
If you want to focus on the repuplican party...while ignoring the failings of the democrats...you'll not run short on material...or angry days.
The system is broken...our elected leaders are rotten...left and right. Hypocrisy is a registered trademark of both parties.
NEWS FLASH:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with earmarks. Just quid pro quo. As to the claims of bullet trains from Disneyland to a whore house and money for mice, guess what? They were made up.
Obama never promised to ban earmarks.
How do you compare earmarks which direct how money is spent on projects to shameless corporate greed? It's not the amount that's in question, it's where it's going.
i agree that both past and present administrations share some blame on this issue. and with the amounts of money involved it is small and seems minscule.
my state governor Ed Rendell said on MTP yesterday that the reason for this anger is because its something people can understand and relate something "you can get your arms around" as he said it.
i personally dont agree the bonus's should have been paid, contract or no contract. bonuses imply that you had done something that was good that warranted extra reward. i don't see how a division which nearly sank a company could even think to allow contracts that would include bonuses. to me they are bonuses, they are extra salary i feel they should be treated as such. because i have never in my life heard of a contract that specifically said you will get a bonus. my dad worked at verizon for years, and that had union contracts but never once any mention of some kind of bonus. he would get one based on year end performance reviews. but it wasnt actually in the contract.
Yeah, that's right. Obama inherited this mess from shrub. Them's the facts.
In other words, what you're whinin' about is the relative merits of Obama's ability to make chicken salad out of the eight years of chicken gop-slop in the two months he's been in office.
Now you're learnin', boyo. You just might rise above your delusional gop-slop circumstances and become a rational human being after all.
This is not news! John Fund goes on TV and lies. I'm waiting for someone to write a story when he goes on TV and tells the truth. Why are Media Matters and similar organizations so taken aback that Fund and his compatriots would actually lie. Most of the time they will lie even in the face of proven facts. So the news outlets should show a banner below the screen "This guy is Lying!!".
Try and read the Documents between AIG and the Fed before making claims of 'Perpetuating falsehood'.
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
The first 85 billion was given to AIG by Tim Giethner at the time (FED NY Chairman) on Sept 16. Then on Nov 9th they negotiated some of the terms of that loan and additional billions were pumped in. At that time Ed Liddy and Kashkari put in the retention Bonuses to be paid on 3/15/09. To make it official they had Dodd amend the stimulus bill in Feb and added the Bonus clause.
This information is from a source that read the documents.
Clearly, that somebody wasn't you, little factually-challenged fella.
Once again, just which part of Obama wasn't President on 11/9/08 continues to confound you, Lazlo?
Secondly, just how was Timothy Geithner empowered to give 85 cents to anybody on behalf of the then nonexistent Obama Administration, little factually-challenged fella?
Get yourself a case and a clue or take that trash back to freeperville. We're not in the market for gop-slime revisionist history.
"Clearly, that somebody wasn't you, little factually-challenged fella." -- Ad hominem distration.
"Once again, just which part of Obama wasn't President on 11/9/08 continues to confound you, Lazlo?" --I did not make that claim.
"Secondly, just how was Timothy Geithner empowered to give 85 cents to anybody on behalf of the then nonexistent Obama Administration, little factually-challenged fella?" --AIG received a loan from the NY Fed Bank on Sept 16, Geirhner was the Chairman of that bank, There were terms of that loan negociated on Nov 9. At that time Geithner should have know about the retention bounse to be paid on 3/15/09. And Liddy made a decision that these bounese had to be paid. So try not to get off track with your strawman 'Obama Admin was not in charge' this is not relevant.
"Get yourself a case and a clue or take that trash back to freeperville. We're not in the market for gop-slime revisionist history. " When faced with new information you result to personal attacks?
jwcoop715110 - There is no shame in ignorance...as it can always be remedied. But being a jerk, that's a life-style choice.
Then on Nov 9th they negotiated some of the terms of that loan and additional billions were pumped in. At that time Ed Liddy and Kashkari put in the retention Bonuses to be paid on 3/15/09.
“We adopted and disclosed this contractual retention program months before the government provided support to AIG,” said Christina Pretto, a spokeswoman for the insurer.
The insurer started the retention plan for the financial products unit in the first quarter of 2008, AIG said in regulatory filings
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13395005/AIGs-Employee-Retention-Plan
pearlene - The documnet you provided has nothing to do with my statemnt. Like I stated before you need to review these documents http://www.scribd.com/doc/12700640/FOX-Business-Handed-Victory-in-Treasury-FOIA
To reach this conclusion <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
The first 85 Billion was given to AIG by Tim Giethner at the time (FED NY Chairman) on Sept 16. Then on Nov 9th they negotiated some of the terms of that loan and additional Billions were pumped in. At that time Ed Liddy and Kashkari put in the retention Bonuses to be paid on 3/15/09. To make it official they had Dodd amend the stimulus bill in Feb and added the Bonus clause.
peralene, you presented a document that has nothing do with my arugment.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/fox-business-wins-foia-lawsuit-treasury/
This is were real news is found, and this is how real jounalism is ascertained. This Media matters spin is completlly irresponsible.
'And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts tha they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prosects, the puroses of out program and the choices that we face" JFK
belated vent:
"Look, there is one thing worse than greedy Wall Street people, and that's Washington politicians who work for Wall Street people --"
No, not quite: it is news pundits who deliberately commit slander, i.e.: lie deliberately on the airwaves that are worse.
Any thoughtful review of this subject reveals that Fox news and its punditry is lying, deliberately... there must be laws against this.