Comments on: “Tea Party” Rick Santelli Defends AIG Bonus Babies

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:54:57 +0000

And you apparently have no idea who regulates AIG’s derivatives business. Were you just smirking through your hat back up there at 8:13?

By: joaquin

joaquin — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:42:49 +0000

“Who regulates CDSs?”
I have no idea who regulates the Chicago Dental Society or the California Dressage Society or the Center for Documentary Studies at Duke. *smirk*

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:41:25 +0000

Dollar amounts are meaningless.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2009 Democratic Party Platform!

Stuff Happens. Deficits don’t matter. – Dick Cheney

Your 2010 Republican Party platform.

Equal time, an’ all that.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:33:46 +0000

Just like the banks were overseen by congressional banking committees and the SEC, AIG was regulated.

Really Joker? Who regulates CDSs?

By: SCOOMBS

SCOOMBS — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:23:41 +0000

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED………..

By: Amelia

Amelia — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:21:41 +0000

Oliver, you gotta do something about the comments, if I hit back/forward accidentally my comment disappears and I have to start over. Other blogs cache it.

Anyway, I love how the blonde kisses his ass while the other chick is like, “Mehhhhhhh *cough*asshole*cough*.” I wonder if that was totally scripted…how did they pick who got to be the skeptic and who had to kiss his ass? “You’re blonde, you be the credulous one.” “Ugh, fine.”

God, that guy is such a loudmouth. He’s just a few decibels below Billy Mays.

By: joaquin

joaquin — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:13:34 +0000

The focus on the bonuses is nothing but a smoke screen, a mere distraction.
AIG was overseen by the states and federal regulator who knew exactly was AIG was doing and blessed-off on it. Just like the banks were overseen by congressional banking committees and the SEC, AIG was regulated. The banks and AIG weren’t functioning in a vacuum.

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:08:47 +0000

Dollar amounts are meaningless.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your 2009 Democratic Party Platform!

By: Carlos

Carlos — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:43:23 +0000

It’s bad enough that our government granted virtually unconditional bailouts for these morons…

…But I suppose it’s a testament to the piss-poor management of AIG that someone in that company authorized contractual, compulsory non-performance-based bonuses for a group of people.

Who the hell gets those in the real world?

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:05:17 +0000

Dear geniuses. Quick question for you. Why do you suppose the cutoff date of February 11 was chosen? Why not February 10 or 12?

For folks who have all the answers, you don’t ask very many questions.

By: Walker

Walker — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:01:29 +0000

Dodd inserts the following provision in the stimulus bill: Bring better lies next time. The passage you quote was added in committee to neuter Dodd's proposal. I don't like Dodd; I think he is (deservedly) going down next election. But get your facts straight.

By: calling all toasters

calling all toasters — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:47:37 +0000

LEAVE AIG ALOOOOOOOOOOOONE!!!!!!!

By: Jaim

Jaim — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:08:39 +0000

IOKIYAR.

By: Michael Over Here

Michael Over Here — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:08:04 +0000

Walker has it exactly right.

By: Walker

Walker — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:03:11 +0000

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Santelli, but he has a point.

No he does not. Dollar amounts are meaningless. What matters is return on your investment. The fact that people are continuing to opine about the effectiveness of the bailout without considering ROI at all (and only look at dollar amounts) is one of the most destructive and counterproductive aspects of this debate.

If we give billions to homeowners to prevent defaults that would lead to trillions of losses, then that is money well-invested; you are taking a smaller loss to prevent a greater loss. The problem is that there is no return on investment to give bonuses to people who put our economic system in danger and have shown little will or inclination to clean up after their mess.

That is why everyone is up in arms. And is why Santelli continues to be an idiot.

By: TroyJMorris

TroyJMorris — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:57:04 +0000

Seriously, the Government should have put… I don’t know… fucking stipulations when handing over money. Like anything. It was just a gift wrapped wad of cash.

By: TroyJMorris

TroyJMorris — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:56:12 +0000

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Santelli, but he has a point.

Get pissed about the whole cake, not the smudge of frosting.

By: jr

jr — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:34:51 +0000

Rick hearts the second gilded age

By: Michael Over Here

Michael Over Here — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:51:05 +0000

Purchasing equity does not equal giving free money.

Could Santelli be anymore condescending? M, B, and T are different letters! It’s not Wall Street, it’s Sesame Street.

By: yo mama

yo mama — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:30:05 +0000

Solution: Quit giving billions of tax dollars to failing companies that are contractually obligated to give these said tax dollars to their executives.

Your welcome everyone.

Our government is just WOOOOOONDERFULLLL!!!!