Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

AIG Exec Whines About Public Anger, and Now We're Supposed to Pity Him? Yeah, Right

By Matt Taibbi, AlterNet. Posted March 26, 2009.


AIG exec Jake DeSantis' NY Times letter asking for us to chill out about his poor overworked employees is a sick joke.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

"I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to AIG. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down." via Op-Ed Contributor -- "Dear AIG, I Quit!" -- NYTimes.com

Like a lot of people, I read Wednesday's New York Times editorial by former AIG Financial Products employee Jake DeSantis, whose resignation letter basically asks us all to reconsider our anger toward the poor overworked employees of his unit.

DeSantis has a few major points. They include: 1) I had nothing to do with my boss Joe Cassano's toxic credit default swaps portfolio, and only a handful of people in our unit did; 2) I didn't even know anything about them; 3) I could have left AIG for a better job several times last year; 4) but I didn't, staying out of a sense of duty to my poor, beleaguered firm, only to find out in the end that; 5) I would be betrayed by AIG senior management, who promised we would be rewarded for staying, but then went back on their word when they folded in highly cowardly fashion in the face of an angry and stupid populist mob.

I have a few responses to those points. They are 1) Bullshit; 2) bullshit; 3) bullshit, plus of course; 4) bullshit. Lastly, there is 5) Boo-Fucking-Hoo. You dog.

AIGFP only had 377 employees. Those 400-odd folks received almost $3.5 billion in compensation in the last seven years, a very large part of that money coming from the sale of credit default protection. Doing the math, that averages out to over $9 million of compensation per person.

Ask yourself this question: If your company made that much money, and the boss of the unit made almost $280 million in just a few years, exactly how likely is it that you wouldn't know where that money was coming from?

Are we supposed to believe that Jake DeSantis knew nothing about Joe Cassano's CDS deals? If your boss and the top guys in your firm were all making a killing selling anything at all -- whether it was rubber kayaks, generic Levitra or credit default swaps -- you really wouldn't bother to find out what that thing they were selling was? You'd really just mind your own business, sit at your cubicle and put your faith in the guys up top to fill you in if there was something you needed to know?

This would be a believable claim for an employee of some other wing of AIG, a company with well over 100,000 employees. But DeSantis works for tiny, 377-person AIGFP, a unit that had only two offices -- one in London and one in Greenwich, Conn.

And we're talking about financial professionals, the most shameless group of tirelessly envious gossips ever to walk the face of the earth. The likelihood that Cassano would pull in $280 million for himself, and his equally greedy, hopelessly jealous employees wouldn't know not only exactly how he made that money but every last ugly detail about his life -- from what skank he's sleeping with to what side of his trousers he hangs on -- is almost zero.

I know plenty of people who work in this world, and I've met very few who didn't hate with every cell in their bodies anyone in their own companies who made more money than they did or got bigger bonuses at Christmastime. Gossiping about each others' bonuses, and bitching about each others' compensation, is the national pastime for these people.

So forgive me if I don't buy this story that poor Jake and his buddies didn't know about Cassano's CDS business.

Also, there's this: let's just say, Jake, that you're telling the truth, that you don't know anything about this toxic portfolio. If that's the case, then why the fuck does anyone need to retain you at an exorbitant salary to help unwind that very portfolio? If these transactions aren't and never were your expertise, then where the hell is your value here?

When I spoke to Christine Pretto, the AIG spokeswoman, and asked about those bonuses, she said that AIG needed to retain people like you in order to take advantage of your "knowledge of these transactions." So if you don't have knowledge of these transactions, what are you being paid for? Your winning attitude?

Then there's the matter of Jake's other job offers. About that: It was apparent as early as last February that Cassano had basically destroyed not only the unit but perhaps AIG itself. The company announced over $11 billion in losses around that time.

If I'm Jake DeSantis, and I'm really innocent, I'm looking for a job that very instant. And I'm taking the first good job anyone offers me. Because by then I'd have realized that I was working for the latest version of Enron. That the man I've been working for the last six or seven years has turned out to be one of the most irresponsible Wall Street villains of all time, a man who single-handedly destroyed the 18th-largest company in the world. If I'm Jake DeSantis, I'm quitting out of moral disgust, because I don't want to be associated with this kind of behavior.

The only reason I'd stay is if I didn't have a choice. Which I feel sure is what happened here. If Jake DeSantis didn't take advantage of an opportunity to get a better job elsewhere with a company that didn't hide billions in losses and make $500 billion bets with money they didn't have, that's his fucking problem.

The notion that I the taxpayer have to pay this asshole a million-dollar bonus because he turned down a better job at a less-guilty company is repugnant to begin with; the notion that he stayed at AIGFP because he expected me to pay him this bonus makes me hate him even more.

But it's all moot, because I feel quite sure it's a lie. As one trader for another firm told me not long ago when I asked what he thought about the need to pay these "retention bonuses" to these "valued employees" at AIGFP:

"Yeah, right. Who would hire these guys? They'd stay for a dollar if you offered it to them, much less a million."

I mean, half of Wall Street is unemployed right now. There are plenty of unemployed traders out there whose resumes don't include such entries as "Worked for years at small unit of AIG that helped destroy the universe; throughout that time was completely ignorant of burgeoning global disaster unfolding 5 feet from my desk."

The idea that other companies would be so eager to pass over the seas of truly innocent available people in order to scoop up some still-employed veteran of AIGFP -- and that they would be so enthusiastic in their pursuit of said AIGFP employees that AIG would need to pay those AIGFP folks million-plus retention bonuses to get them to stay -- is so ludicrous it almost defies comment.

Show me, anywhere, the Wall Street firm that's willing right now to spend more than a million dollars poaching still-employed midlevel executives like DeSantis, when they can just put an ad in the paper and have 500 recently unemployed CEOs begging for work at almost any salary in five minutes.

So the idea that the rest of Wall Street is breaking down AIGFP's doors to lavish its idiot personnel with million-dollar offers is just utterly preposterous. The fact that DeSantis expects us to believe this is insulting in itself.

Also, remember, DeSantis until this year was probably the recipient of performance bonuses. This year, obviously, there was no performance, so AIG doled out these "retention" bonuses instead. And the value of these retention bonuses is seriously in question if AIG never really needed to pay extra to retain this personnel, which I personally believe they didn't.

I personally believe these "retention" bonuses were a ruse cooked up by management to suck a few more dollars out of the company before it sank to the ocean bottom. So if DeSantis is "owed" these bonuses, it's only in the sense that someone up above agreed to cheat the shareholders by paying these bonuses when they weren't really necessary; they weren't "earned" in any real sense.

But all of this is really secondary to the tone of DeSantis' letter. He acts like he's a victim because he didn't get to keep his after-tax bonus of $742,006.40 in the middle of a global depression. And he really loses his fucking mind when he writes:

"None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house."

First of all, Jake, you asshole, no plumber in the world gets paid a $740,000 bonus, over and above his salary, just to keep plumbing. Second, try living on a plumber's salary before you even think about comparing yourself to one; you're inviting a pitchfork in the gut by even thinking along those lines. Third, Jake, if you were a plumber, and the electrician burned the house down -- well, guess what? If you and that electrician worked for the same company, you actually wouldn't get paid for that job.

Out in the real world, when your company burns a house down, you're not getting paid by that client. It's only on Wall Street, where the every-man-for-himself ethos is built into an insanely selfish and greed-addled compensation system, that people like you expect to get paid in a bubble -- only there do people expect their performance bonuses no matter how much money the shareholders lose overall, no matter how many people get laid off after the hostile takeover, no matter how ill-considered the mortgages lent out by your division were.

You expect that money because you think it's owed to you. But what money? The money is gone. Your boss, if not you, set it all afire. You want the money, but where exactly do you think it's coming from?

Do you just not understand that that money now would have to come out of someone else's pocket? That it would have to come from middle-class taxpayers, real plumbers, people who didn't make millions over the years in equity and commodity trading?

Here's the real problem with people like Jake DeSantis. Throughout this whole period, they never were able to connect the dots -- to grasp the fact that when they skimmed a million here or a million there off the great rivers of capital that flowed through their offices, that that money came from somewhere, from someone. To them, it wasn't someone else's money, it was just money, and why shouldn't they have it?

It's remarkable that when DeSantis, in his letter, touts the reason he deserves his high compensation, all he can talk about is how much money he made: "The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation."

For a guy like this, his worth as a human being is wrapped up in buying a bag of beans for $10 and selling it for $11. He states this like it's a law of nature: he was a good equities-and-commodities trader, therefore he should make a lot of money.

Only a person with a habitually overinflated sense of self-worth could think he deserves a $700,000 retention bonus, even if it has to be paid by taxpayers, when in reality no one "deserves" that much money. It may be that some people do get paid that much, but most people who make that much money have enough sense to realize their cushy lifestyles are an accident of fate, of birth, of class, not something that is "supported" by some unwritten natural law of compensation.

Hey Jake, it's not like you were curing cancer. You were a fucking commodities trader. Thanks to a completely insane, horribly skewed set of societal values that puts a premium on greed and severely undervalues selflessness, communal spirit and intellectualism -- values that make millionaires out of people like you and leave teachers and nurses, the people who raise your kids and clean your parents' bedpans, comparatively penniless -- you made a lot of money.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: new york times, matt taibbi, aig, jake desantis

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Yeah I was outraged by CNN Campbell Brown presenting this without the facts
Posted by: RR#1 on Mar 26, 2009 12:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We were told that those retention bonuses were written prior to the bail-out and that we were legally bound to honour them. The contracts that were held up in Congress were written prior to the crash and as Barney Frank pointed out, they were in violation of the fiduciary obligations of the people who work for AIG and should be null and void on that account alone. Now we are being told for the first time that people were asked to stay on and work for a dollar the same as Mr. Liddy to help unwind the bad assets. So which is it? None of this adds up and I have a great deal of difficulty ascertaining the truth regarding these bonuses, retention fees or whatever you call them. I cannot believe for a moment that people were working for a dollar over there basically on commission and AIG didn't use that as a huge public relations campaign and rightly so if there were any veracity to this individuals claim. I also take great exception to the media for not pointing out these holes in this story and presenting them along with the current claims that are now being made.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're a lunatic. Posted by: GuitarBill
You call this journalism, Matt Taibbi?
Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing on Mar 26, 2009 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I call this a punk's failed attempt to emulate the late Hunter S. Thompson. You assert that Jake DeSantis' claims are "bullshit", but where's your proof?

And where's your outrage over the fact that AIG was given billions in taxpayer monies by the Federal government? Do you honestly expect me to give a damn about a measly $165 million in bonuses when the Federal Government trampled the Constitution of the United States to provide AIG with billions' worth of corporate welfare?

Tell me another joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ah... that makes sense... Posted by: buffeliscious
» What strangeness is this ?? Posted by: photon's feather
» Here's your explanation Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Here's your explanation Posted by: photon's feather
» Who's the real idiot? Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» RE: Who's the real idiot? Posted by: Quannah
» I know I'm not welcome. Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» RE: I know I'm not welcome. Posted by: GuitarBill
» Unfortunately for you, Longdream Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» $451MM not $165 MM Posted by: AIG_451mmbonus
Blow me you stupid AIG Parasite
Posted by: EinMD on Mar 26, 2009 12:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fuck you and your illusory $1 yearly salary. Your million dollar bonus package/retention package or whatever the fuck it's called these days is money that belongs in my packet and the pocket of my fellow taxpayers. Instead it's allowing you to take Spa weekends and buy planes on my dime.

You know what happens when regular companies are on the rocks and need bail out funds to keep from closing?

They close... and everybody working for them is out of a job.

So shut the fuck up. You get no pity from me. You know how many people are working 10, 12 and 14 hour days for minimum wage right now? You know how many people are currently living in fucking tent cities in California now because of your companies greed??

Go live off the money you have in your off shore hidden accounts or better yet, jump out of a window on the 35th floor somewhere on Wall Street. When you have to decide between eating, paying your electric bill, keeping a roof over your head or being able to drive to your minimum wage job then you can fucking ask for sympathy. Until then screw you and the horse you rode in on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blow me you stupid AIG Parasite Posted by: gopblowsgoats
Here's the problem. . . .
Posted by: NthnBrazil on Mar 26, 2009 1:05 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a proper bankruptcy, bonuses like this are paid out all the time.

What's that??!?!?! Bankrupt companies don't pay bonuses!!!

Actually, its very common, and particularly in Jake DeSantis's case. You see, Jake ran a business that was still worth something (i.e. the commodities portfolio) after the "bankruptcy" . The Trustee's job in a bankruptcy is to get the most value possible out of the firms remaining assets to pay off the creditors. A million dollar retention bonus to the head of commodities is chicken-feed compared to the 100's of millions that portfolio is potentially worth if sold off properly, and all that money goes to pay back the creditors. In this case, that's the tax-payer.

The reality is, put in the decision makers chair absent the emotion we all would probably decide we wanted someone like Jake DeSantis and his million dollar bonus to stay at AIG because him being there might mean the difference between a $100 million return on his portfolio and a $250 million return. As 80% owners of the company we should care about that.

Could they have hired some fired commodities trader to work for peanuts? Probably, but why would you do that and take the risk on a worse return? Save $1 million and lose $150 million on an unknown quantity when you've got a guy with a proven track record? Why?

But it's much easier to call him a greedy scumbag after the fact and throw him to the wolves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here's the problem. . . . Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» RE: Here's the problem. . . . Posted by: LeaveMeAlone
» Cleaning house Posted by: Eddie Van Helsing
» That's a separate discussion Posted by: NthnBrazil
» One fine point Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Here's the problem. . . . Posted by: madmax427
» Who was asking who for proof? Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Here's the problem. . . . Posted by: Edansmommy
» Where's the evidence of that? Posted by: NthnBrazil
» To whit Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: EXCUSE ME. Posted by: Longdream
» Why would I? Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Why would I? Posted by: Longdream
» You're conflating things Posted by: NthnBrazil
» Then I've lost the plot Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Why would I? Posted by: Quannah
» Actually. . . Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Actually. . . Posted by: Quannah
» Oh ages Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Why would I? Posted by: Longdream
» A couple of things Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: A couple of MORE things Posted by: Longdream
» What a laugh!! Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Laugh now, while you can. Posted by: Longdream
» For real? Posted by: NthnBrazil
» RE: Here's the problem. . . . Posted by: gopblowsgoats
I thought you New Yorkers were tough
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Mar 26, 2009 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How is it this guy's still able to walk?

;)

#@!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is anyone organising in front of Chris Dodd's home?
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Mar 26, 2009 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really this is when the pitch fork mobs get down right dangerous. You know what would fool many is the AIG guys design there home as an Abortion Clinch, at least the media will leave them alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» keep your eye on the ball Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars
» RE: keep your eye on the ball Posted by: pelican beak
» RE: keep your eye on the ball Posted by: GodlessUSSoldier
» RE: keep your eye on the ball Posted by: photon's feather
» Are you? Posted by: Beck
THE AIG CROWD IS NOT ANGRY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 26, 2009 2:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're scared to death. Threats are coming at them from every direction and they don't quite know what to do. After a long run at being enormously wealthy and successful they never thought this could happen to them. They are actually having to answer to the 'common folk'. Some of whom know where they live. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taibbi is still working for Bush/Cheney . . .
Posted by: dustdevil on Mar 26, 2009 2:38 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Helping to fan the flames of the Big Distraction while the much larger crimes of Bush/Cheney are ignored.

Don't think it wasn't planned this way.

And what about Karl Rove's testimony in the Seigelman case? What happened to that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's time for an intervention Posted by: skoog5600
» You're out of your mind Posted by: GuitarBill
» Moron Posted by: dustdevil
» Moron Posted by: dustdevil
» Moron Posted by: dustdevil
» Temper, temper. Posted by: GuitarBill
» Oy vey? Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Oy vey? Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Oy vey? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Oy vey? Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Oy vey? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Oy vey? Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Oy vey? Posted by: Quannah
» Moron Posted by: dustdevil
» Cretin. Posted by: GuitarBill
» Moron Posted by: dustdevil
WAY TO GO, MATT
Posted by: Mewsician on Mar 26, 2009 3:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a one-time print journalist, I continue to applaud Taibbi's unbelievable talents. He's an excellent writer, a REAL investigative journalist (dying breed) and - most important of all - an informed voice among the blizzard of Internet B.S. that combines oh-SO-desperately needed old-school, real journalism with a style and tone that are perfect for the age and the medium he works in.

Matt, you have my undying admiration. I'd quit my secure, well-paid job as a writer/editor TOMORROW - and make my husband understand why I just have to do it - just to be one of your fact-checkers. I'd go to my grave thinking my life and talents had not been wasted if I could hit for your team.

And anybody who's revving up to send me a snotty note about misplaced hero worship - piss off. +:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Moron Posted by: dustdevil
» Cretin Posted by: GuitarBill
» Moron Posted by: dustdevil
» Moron Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Cretin Posted by: Longdream
» Look mom! The lunatic is back. Posted by: GuitarBill
» I know I am doing well . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» Sub-moron Posted by: dustdevil
» Sub-moron Posted by: dustdevil
» Another double post? Posted by: GuitarBill
» No. Are you? Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: WAY TO GO, MATT Posted by: stevehamlin
Total reminder of 'Ten Ways to Lose a Guy in 10 days"
Posted by: Kellie M. Levans on Mar 26, 2009 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bullshit!
What a great laugh, reading Taibbi's boldness in print!Can't even imagine the time and research these pieces must have taken you, Matt.
-Kellie Levans-
ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE INTERNATIONAL
http://www.rollingstonedreams.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's time for an intervention
Posted by: skoog5600 on Mar 26, 2009 4:57 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You need to get some help. The delusional mind is leaking into your reality and onto the pages of Alternet.

The men in the white suits will be by to pick you up later. Look out your window now, they're here. And don't fight them, it will only make it harder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hey, Skoog . . . Posted by: dustdevil
This doesn't just affect the USA
Posted by: megpie71 on Mar 26, 2009 5:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing which a lot of the so-called "executives" of these various firms seem to forget is that this is a *global* financial crisis. It isn't just affecting their company, their state, or even just their country. It's affecting *everyone*, all over the world. It makes it harder for people all over the world to survive, makes it more difficult for people all over the world to find work, and it makes people all over the globe angry. Particularly when they learn that part of the reason they're having problems is because a group of bankers in the US decided to play fast and loose with the money they were entrusted.

I'm in Australia, a country which went from being in the middle of an economic boom to being in the middle of a recession (within the space of about a week). I was employed when the news broke, on a short term contract. I'm now in my fifth month of continual unemployment, and I've had to go on the dole just to be able to continue to do things like eating. Our economy, which had been doing quite nicely (to the point where our dollar was trading pretty close to par with the US dollar for a while), is so closely linked to the US economy that when you guys sneeze, we catch the cold.

I spend a lot of time feeling helplessly angry about the circumstances I'm trapped in (unemployed, likely to lose the house because we can't keep up with the mortgage payments, looking at moving in with my in-laws in order to be able to pay off the debt we'll *still* be in once we've sold off the house etc). A lot of my anger is directed toward politicians in the US, and even more of it is directed toward the greedy so-and-sos who decided they were poorly off because they didn't legally own all the money in the world. Reading dispassionate pieces about whichever bit of financial jiggery-pokery has been discovered just feeds my anger, since there's the attitude that "well, it happened and we're not going to do anything about it". Articles like this make me feel as though there may be some hope, because there's the sense of outrage about what's going on.

Given a large proportion of the world outside the US is affected by this particular disaster, it would probably be a good idea to consider showing the rest of us that you give a damn about preventing another such iteration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Job Matt..
Posted by: KAvatar on Mar 26, 2009 6:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And yes, many thanks for "The Big Take Over" read the whole thing over. while reading it almost threw me out of my chair few of times.

Especially when I read..

the party selling CDS protection didn't have to post any money upfront.When a $100 corporate bond is sold, for example, someone has to show 100 actual dollars. But when you sell a $100 CDS guarantee, you don't have to show a dime."

and

Cassano was selling so-called "naked" CDS deals. In a "naked" CDS, neither party actually holds the underlying loan. In other words, Bank B not only sells CDS protection to Bank A for its mortgage on the Pope — it turns around and sells protection to Bank C for the very same mortgage. This could go on ad nauseam: You could have Banks D through Z also betting on Bank A's mortgage. Unlike traditional insurance, Cassano was offering investors an opportunity to bet that someone else's house would burn down, or take out a term life policy on the guy with AIDS down the street. It was no different from gambling

I mean, how could this kind of thing can go on for years in Western Democracy, it almost gives a feeling like some mafia running this whole thing !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Tiny Violin Is Playing
Posted by: left_libertarian on Mar 26, 2009 8:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wall Street the Welfare Queen, eat $h!t and Die

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you
Posted by: Jeanne on Mar 26, 2009 8:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was pretty snowed by De Santis' letter (I am sympathetic IF he really didn't know). I think, though, that I would like the names of those who designed, engineered, packaged, and sold those credit default swaps. Those shysters are the real criminals, selling worthless mortgage backed derivatives that were "insured" by these credit default swaps -- two worthless products bundled together and shilled to unsuspecting, trusting, and gullible investors. It's a cynical work of fraud. And everyone who should have been watching, regulating and overseeing these financial institutions has the gall to act surprised. De Santis may not have known the true nature of AIG's ponzi scheme, believing he was working in a legitimate financial institution -- being a good soldier. Too bad. It will never be a highlight on his curriculum vitae -- he may want to claim he was in a coma the last 11 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HISTORIC STRUGGLES
Posted by: RR#1 on Mar 26, 2009 8:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ON APRIL 27, 1942, only months after Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt presented to Congress a proposal to limit the income of any one
American. At a time of “grave national danger,” the President advised, “no
American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of
more than $25,000 a year.”1 The nation’s “discrepancies between low personal
incomes and very high personal incomes,” FDR urged, “should be lessened.”2
Not all Americans would agree. The New York Herald Tribune quickly
labeled FDR’s $25,000 limit — about $300,000 in current dollars — “a blatant
piece of demagoguery.”3Many wealthy Americans, adds historian Kenneth
Davis, felt “angry outrage.” But few newspapers across the country would, in
the end, echo the Herald Tribune’s fury, and wealthy Americans, by and large,
would keep their outrage “prudently muted.”4 Hardly any average Americans,
the wealthy realized, shared their anger. The President, most Americans
believed, was merely stating what needed to be said. At a time of national crisis,
the rich needed to pay more in taxes, a great deal more.5 No one in their
right mind, most Americans agreed, could possibly object to that notion.
Sixty years later, another American President, George W. Bush, would
object to that notion. Amid a new national crisis, a war against terror, this
President would insist that America’s wealthiest citizens should pay not more in
taxes, but less, a great deal less.
http://www.greedandgood.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MATT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Mar 27, 2009 12:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IS THAT AIG is behind 9/11. Yes! All you truthers know what I'm talking about, I got the bat signals from my tinfoil hat today. Cheney, who secretly runs AIG, actually created jet shaped missiles in his batcave.

TRUTHERS UNITE! WE WILL EAT BEN AFFLECK BECAUSE HE WAS BEHIND THE 3 TOWER EXPLOSION! SQUIRRELS WERE TRAINED AND GENETICALLY ENGINEERED TO RANSACK THE PENTAGON! MIDGETS! 9/11! IT ALL MAKES SENSE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You sad salamander of shit. Posted by: weathered
» This adolescent behavior . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» Poor cretin got his ass kicked Posted by: GuitarBill
» This is getting to be fun . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» Moronic drivel . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Moronic drivel . . . Posted by: Longdream
» Signing off now . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» Signing off now . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Signing off now . . . Posted by: GuitarBill
AIG is Parent of ILFC & Thats The Beef
Posted by: Jonalist on Mar 27, 2009 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AIG is the parent company, ILFC is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG. Although neither AIG nor any of its subsidiaries is a co-obligor or guarantor of our debt securities, circumstances affecting AIG have an impact on ILFC. For example, concurrent with ratings actions taken on AIG by S&P, Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”), actions were taken, or statements were made, with respect to ILFC's ratings by Moody’s and S&P. A covenant with AIG disallows ILFC to: (a) incur debt, (b) encumber ILFC assets, (c) enter into sale-leaseback transactions, (d) make equity or debt investments in other parties, (e) pay dividends & distributions. However now that Taxpayers own 80% of AIG there should be some consideration, the covenants may affect ILFC's ability to operate & finance the business as ILFC deems appropriate. Which is the better proposal, give AIG the money for ILFC or supeona ILFC to the Senate & make ILFC produce the reports AIG has hidden thus far & request ILFC if they need a bailout & suggest ILFC to propose in what amount & state if they are ready to accept the terms of a bailout?

It is tough to make contracts when you own a major industry which supports the industry, I mean airline industry & AIG owns its own solution which it insures. Those aircraft are huge to small & the total is enormous compared to other business which has taken a bailout to stay in business. If AIG cannot obtain the money which it wants to set those in business through 2020 then AIG Execs are failing their purpose. To buy a aircraft is one thing to lease what you bought entirely another, AIG is saying their ownership is actually a partial order begun in Dec 2008 for aircraft which would be received in 2009 & be leased through 2020 making taxpayers now the owner & manager of aircraft & leases. If AIG cannot meet the point of sale (pay for the items bought) someone else could purchase & that would set back ILFC whom the purchase is for, the waiting list is long & most airlines would purchase if ILFC did not through AIG' funding bailout. Now it looks that Taxpayers would have to eat the contracts if AIG does not receive enough money for this to work for ILFC & that could mean a loss of money for the Fed's whom has given AIG money earlier during the Bush Administration under Geithner & during the Obama Administration under Geithner. It looks to me that a few big bonus payments could have been directed to administrators & employees of ILFC but I have to confirm with names & I do not have the names of individuals that received bonus payments from AIG, no one was allowed to know who was to receive a bonus. ILFC would have had no control over a choice to obtaion a Bonus.

The International Lease Finance Corp (ILFC) is owned by AIG not entirely part of the AIG Bailout cause they kept that under wraps until they released the news of it to the SEC recently in reports filled with the SEC. American International Group Inc.'s aircraft-leasing unit is seeking to refinance billions of dollars in order stay in business. ILFC, which leases jets to airlines, has been up for sale. AIG is selling business units to help repay part of its debt to the U.S. government, which has extended $182.5 billion to the company to keep it in business. The ILFC needs additional financing to stay in business. As a full-service lessor, ILFC delivers a wide array of valuable services via the operating lease including fleet planning & rationalization, revenue & route analysis, product support programs, & more. The ILFC team develops, negotiates, executes & closes complex transactions from traditional operating leases & fleet renewals to structured financings. With a diverse portfolio approaching one thousand modern Boeing & Airbus jet aircraft, ILFC is uniquely positioned to address the growing demand for aircraft leasing by offering the most cost-effective & flexible options in the business. (Part 1-3)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AIG is Parent of ILFC & Thats The Beef
Posted by: Jonalist on Mar 27, 2009 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Among the world's largest airline lessors with 500 or more aircraft in their fleets, ILFC is distinguished by its ownership of one of the youngest, most advanced leasing fleets in the world. With a fleet size nearing 1000 aircraft, ILFC has a broad array of aircraft types & airline Lessees, offering diverse aircraft portfolios. ILFC also sells its aircraft to its Lessees. The initial term of our current leases range in length from two years to 15 years with current maturities through 2020. To meet the needs of a number of airlines, a few of our leases are negotiated in Euros. After ILFC agrees to the rental payment currency with an airline, the negotiated currency remains for the term of the lease. ILFC has hedged 85% of our future Euro denominated lease payment cash flows, under leases that were in effect at March 11, 2005, through February 2010. The economic risk arising from foreign currency denominated leases has, to date, been immaterial to ILFC.

ILFC has 180 full-time employees, which is not labor intensive. ILFC's employees are subject to AIG’s Code of Conduct designed to assure that all employees perform their duties with honesty & integrity. In addition, ILFC's, directors & officers are subject to AIG’s Director, Executive Officer, & Senior Financial Officer Code of Business Conduct & Ethics. Both of these Codes appear in the Corporate Governance section of www.aigcorporate.com. The ILFC business is actually capital intensive. None the ILFC employees is covered by a collective bargaining agreement & ILFC believes that they maintain excellent employee relations. ILFC provides certain employee benefits including retirement, health, life, disability & accident insurance plans, some of which are established & maintained by our parent, AIG (Like UAW has for Union Workers selected to serve Automakers - monopolized). ILFC lessees are required to carry those types of insurance which are customary in the air transportation industry, including comprehensive liability insurance & aircraft hull insurance. In general, ILFC is an additional insured on liability policies carried by the lessees. ILFC obtains certificates of insurance from the lessees’ insurance brokers. All certificates of insurance contain a breach of warranty endorsement so that ILFC's interests are not prejudiced by any act or omission of the operator-lessee. Lease agreements generally require hull & liability limits to be in U.S. dollars, which are shown on the certificate of insurance.

The Company is incorporated in the State of California & its principal offices are located at:

International Lease Finance Corp (ILFC)
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 3400
Los Angeles, California 90067

Telephone Number: (310) 788-1999
Facsimile Number: (310) 788-1990
Website address

I.R.S. Employer Identification No.: 22-3059110

(Part 2-3)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AIG is Parent of ILFC & Thats The Beef
Posted by: Jonalist on Mar 27, 2009 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
6.625% Notes due November 15, 2013
Registered: New York Stock Exchange
As of June 30, 2008 & March 24, 2009, there were 45,267,723 shares of Common Stock, no par value, outstanding, all of which were held by affiliates.

These are contracts with:
Airbus, Boeing, CFM International Engines, Engine Alliance Engines, General Electric Engines, International Aero Engines, Pratt & Whitney Engines, and Rolls-Royce Engines.

ILFC leases the full line of both Airbus & Boeing aircraft.

Worldwide Customers:
(a) North America: United States, Canada, Mexico.
(b) Central America: Caymen Islands, Jamaica, Panama.
(c) South America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Trinidad & Tobago, Venezuela.
(d) Western Europe: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, United Kingdom.
(e) Eastern Europe: Belarus, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungry, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine.
(f) Africa: Cape Verde, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius, Reunion Island, Seychelles, South Africa, Tunisia.
(g) Middle East: Israel, Jordan, Oman, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Yemenia.
(h) Asia: China Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Macau, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam.
(i) Australia & Oceania: Australia, New Zealand.

As of December 31, 2008, we owned 955 jet aircraft, had nine additional aircraft in the fleet classified as finance & sales-type leases & provided fleet management services for 99 aircraft. At December 31, 2008, we had contracted with Boeing & Airbus to purchase 168 new aircraft, all negotiated in U.S. dollars, for delivery through 2019 with an estimated purchase price of $16.7 billion, of which 49 will deliver in 2009 with an estimated aggregate purchase price of $3.0 billion.

On March 12, 2009, ILFC borrowed $800 million from AIG Funding to fund our contractual obligations through the end of March 2009. The note is payable upon demand, but otherwise in full upon maturity, which will be the earlier of our sale by AIG or December 31, 2009. ILFC must also use any proceeds from the secured financings we are seeking to repay the note. AIG has also approved an additional $900 million loan to be provided on the same terms by AIG Funding on March 30, 2009 to fund our contractual obligations through the end of April 2009, which is subject to receiving consent of the NY Fed. ILFC has been advised by AIG that AIG will continue to support our short-term liquidity needs through the earlier of our sale or March 2010.

AIG is required to repay the credit facility with the NY Fed primarily from proceeds on sales of assets, including businesses. AIG has announced significant restructuring of its businesses, including an intent to divest itself of non-core businesses, including ILFC. ILFC currently being marketed for divestiture from AIG. If AIG sells 51% or more of ILFC equity interests without ILFC's lenders’ consent, it would be an event of default under ILFC bank term loans & revolving credit agreements & would allow ILFC lenders to declare the ILFC debt immediately due & payable. In addition, an event of default or declaration of acceleration under the ILFC's bank term loans & revolving credit agreements could also result in an event of default under our other debt agreements, including the indentures governing ILFC public debt. Taxpayers are 80% in this grid.

(Part 3-3)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brilliant Rant
Posted by: D_Gold on Mar 27, 2009 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sums up my feelings.

Here in the UK we are getting a load of crap at the moment from the right wing press about how such anti-banker sentiment (one had his windows broken) is threatening the rule of law!

That bankers should be grateful for a job let alone a bonus never seems to occur to them. Concepts such as mistake, failed, shame, and humility are totally alien. I would feel embarrassed to work for such a company and I would not claim any bonus due to help the company and its customers out. In my own firm (electricians) we the staff agreed to freeze pay to help the firm and our jobs.

I find it ironic bankers were happy to lobby & evade laws and regulations when it came to earning bonuses (try reconciling 'duty of care' to employers with NINJA borrowers), but are sticklers for the law when it comes to keeping the cash. Then the greedy schmucks who caused this mess threaten us with leaving! Please DO! And spare us any more cr@p about why your obscene pay reflects high risk when your company is one of the handful the government deems too big to fail!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Brilliant Rant Posted by: photon's feather
How things have changed
Posted by: robert.noll on Mar 27, 2009 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I as young people robbed banks, now banks rob people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How things have changed Posted by: gimmie shelter
Like all scammers, Jake was delusional.
Posted by: peterjkraus on Mar 27, 2009 8:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And it took a Matt Taibbi to express what I felt reading the article. Reading it in three tries, because I was incapable of reading and understanding it in one swoop -- the contents were just too unbelievable. This whining Wall Street prick gets his rant published in the Times? Jesus H. Christ on a pitchfork! Un-fucking-believable, to quote Matt. Un-fucking-real.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gimmie shelter
Posted by: gimmie shelter on Mar 27, 2009 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is time to bring back John Yoo remember him, he was the lawyer who came up with the legal opinion that torture was OK up until the point it killed the prisoner.
I'm sure we can get another legal opinion from him to say that it would be OK to use those same tactics on the thieves Wall Street.
Oops we lost another, Charlie bring in the next one and this time use less water so we can also find out where their off shore accounts are buried.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Public IS Angry because few of these arrogant criminals ever gets prosecuted.
Posted by: JohnHKennedy Denver CO on Mar 27, 2009 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is running a risk that he will soon be seen as
"no change"
from Bush.

If Obama's "no one is above the law" is to be believed,

Obama must soon Appoint a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR for all Bush officials who violated Our
Federal Laws (including Torture) and our Constitution

Avoiding prosecution of these well known Federal Crimes is an Admission by Obama
that He Supports Immunity for Bush, Cheney and Himself,

proving to all voters that high US officials
are protected from Federal Laws & our US Constitution
by their successors.


SIGN The PETITION To Prosecute Bush & Cheney for Torture
Over 63,000 have signed-Join Them.

ANGRYvoters.org

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jwitts
Posted by: juliet on Mar 27, 2009 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the entire article, but this phrase is sexist and ugly: what skank he's sleeping with to what side of his trousers he hangs on ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: jwitts Posted by: DaBear
We should throw dog shit at him
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Mar 27, 2009 10:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone from AIG, Wall ST, the banks and all the other assfaces Obama bailed out should have their names known so we know who to piss on,throw dog shit at,and file class action law suits on.
Obama is a sellout to the rich. Right down the street from the Whitehouse there's folks that bad economic policy has made to sleep on the street. What's Big O's response, 'Fuck 'em, they're lazy.'

It's time to use the power of the Declaration of Independance and remove this jerk and the whole government from power. They piss on half the country and use us to support the rest. I thought there was a chance that 'change' was coming to DC but the truth is 'change' is all we'll have left in our pockets from Uncle Tom's policies.

It's time to light the torches of FREEDOM and boot these petty Tyrants out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

propaganda
Posted by: Gregsdiary on Mar 27, 2009 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"This whining Wall Street prick gets his rant published in the Times?"

The Times is just another part of a societal structure based on greed trying to preserve itself and bulwark the culture it thrives in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Essay is BS for two reasons
Posted by: billwald on Mar 27, 2009 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the payment whatever one chooses to call it is contractually obligated deferred compensation.

Second, if congress can change this person's labor contract then contract can change any labor union contract. For example, the Machinists contract mandated a bonus if Boeing stock closed over a specified amount on a particular day. Can Congress also invalidate this clause in a worker's contract after the fact?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ssay is BS for two reasons Posted by: robert.noll
» RE: Uh-huh. Nice try. Posted by: Longdream
Good on you. Taibbi has facts to back it up
Posted by: FeralCat on Mar 27, 2009 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The commenter must not have read the piece and the Taibbi piece you link to "The Big Takeover"

I like his brashhumor. We need more of it nowadays. Everything else is so canned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best. Essay. Ever.
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 27, 2009 12:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm happy to help poor rich-boy DeSantis out of his mansion and his Mercedes... His family can have my families old bunks at the shelter.

Behind every rich guy is a crime and there will come a reckoning....

1789.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Best. Essay. Ever. Posted by: PaulD
Electricians
Posted by: westomoon on Mar 27, 2009 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, there's nothing I enjoy more than a good freewheeling Taibbi rant -- this one was actually pretty kind to its subject, I thought.

Had to comment on this: Out in the real world, when your company burns a house down, you're not getting paid by that client.

Unless you're KBR, of course, and the client is the Defense Dept. Then the electrician gets paid twice -- once to burn down the house, and then again to fix what they effed up the first time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lectricians Posted by: Quannah
MBA = I deserve Bonus for f*cking up
Posted by: sausage on Mar 27, 2009 1:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks, Matt, for expressing what million of Americans are thinking.

But if anyone should fool himself that AIG is the only corporation in town handing out gigantic bonuses for the monumental fuck ups of incompetent boobs, he's got another think coming.

The culture of bonus entitlement permeates the master of business administration class from the boardrooms on Wall Street to federal agencies to local school boards. Wherever some asshole has an MBA he thinks he is entitled to a bonus just for being who he thinks he is! Somehow this piece of sheepskin, the MBA degree, confers upon this sorry asshole magical powers which entitle to a bonus even if he is a proven failure.

Kristallmighty! we should all have MBAs! It's the real life equivalent of a Monopoly game "Get Out of Jail Free" card!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes! Outrage! Anger! Rage!
Posted by: MaBelle on Mar 27, 2009 4:26 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're too busy demonizing ANYBODY in the financial services industry, regardless of whether or not they deserve it. Your m.o. is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Get everybody revved up, more angry, and beat up on the whole gang -- never mind finding truth or seeking out those more culpable in this mess (most of whom, I gather, left A.I.G. months ago).

Instead, make snide, nasty comments about ONE guy who at least did something responsible with his bonus money.

This attitude is one of the reasons I have such a hard time believing in even progressives to do a better job in the financial services industry. It's easy to let your bitterness spill over into the blogosphere and demonize people who had nothing to do with this mess. It's also intellectually lazy and shows me that you split the world into black and white, good and bad, without ever having to take responsibility for constructive options or alternatives.

In short, this attitude is a whole lot like the Bush Administration's simplistic view of the world!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If you like the essay Posted by: NthnBrazil
» 'Scuse me? Posted by: westomoon
» RE: 'Scuse me? Posted by: MaBelle
» RE: 'Scuse me? Posted by: Longdream
» Hear, hear! Posted by: PaulD
Welcome to the farm
Posted by: PaulD on Mar 28, 2009 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The confiscation of the labor of a particular class of men, its sanctioning by government, and its imposition by the threat of force, are the essences of involuntary servitude.

When did progressives start promoting the slavery of one class as the cure for the slavery of another?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Welcome to the farm Posted by: Longdream
gimmie shelter
Posted by: gimmie shelter on Mar 29, 2009 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets see, we have:
the former president run by corporations
the present president run by corporations
Congress run by corporations
Senate run by corporations
Pentagon run by corporations
the State Dept. run by corporations
the Dept of Education run by corporations
FDA run by corporations
EPA run by corporations
CIA run by corporations
The Supreme Court run by corporations
Dept. of Justice run by corporations
Health Care run by corporations
Wall Street run by corporations
Two wars run by corporations
State governments run by corporations
Local governments run by corporations


The problem with taking back this country we have loved and cherished over the years is that we no longer own it. We are only visitors now and must abide by the corporate owners wishes, otherwise we will be asked to leave. Citizens have been reduced to the same tenuous position that illegals are in after they cross the U.S. border into this country.

We are here but without any say in the way things get done or if they get done. Without real protection and the bonuses that the corporate folks have we are forced to rely on social programs which at any moment could fail due to corporate interference which have put them into certain peril. And much like other trespassers into this country we are not welcomed unless we will work for less that what we need to live. But just like those workers we will have to pool our resources and crowd into communal living accommodations to preserve our precious money.

One thing though, when they kick us out of their country where will we go?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gimmie shelter Posted by: gimmie shelter
gimmie shelter
Posted by: gimmie shelter on Mar 31, 2009 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a response that I wrote to somone from Australia who also feels the pain caused by the thieves of Wall Street.

Australia is a beautiful country and I hope things get better down there. Our country used to be beautiful but has become ugly due to greed by those who were well off to begin with. They don't really represent what America stands for although you may not be able to tell these days. We as citizens of the U.S. are trying to right this ship but the winds are so fierce our voices cannot be heard, the currents so strong that they threaten to tear the ship apart and to add insult to injury our captain has been made blind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
de santis
Posted by: om7buss on Apr 2, 2009 4:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he likes to bike in london, with our money; have a nice trip...www.henrybook.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement