AIG = get me some bonus

AIG's CEO Edward Liddy claims that in the cold, competitive reality for customers, revenue and employees, we (AIG) had to pay the bonuses.

I'd like point out that the people getting bonus were from the financial products division. This is the division that has often been cited as the source of failures which have caused, or helped cause, the implosion of the company and subsequent 180 billion dollar federal bail out.

A few questions for you Mr. Liddy: 1) Who is competing for these employees? The US government owns 80% of your private company because of these valued employees’ failures. If in fact there is such fierce competition for these folks, then I've got to wonder who would hire them. 2)Why would AIG want to retain anybody who contributed to such a catastrophic collapse. 3) Why is it that employees who cause a multi-billion dollar collapse get bonuses while manufacturing industry employees are fired, have their retirement stripped, benefits gutted, or simply have their jobs outsourced? 4) Why is it that 11, million dollar or more bonuses were paid to people who no longer work at AIG? In this case, it can't possibly be that AIG is competing for revenue, customers and its valued employees. It simply can't, for the obvious reason that at least 11 people who received the money don’t work for AIG.

This last point brings us to really the crux of the issue and why the issue has so much traction in the press. Liddy claims, - it was necessary - the reality is that the bonuses represent simple entitlement. It very may well be contractually legal. There may be rationales by Liddy and his like to justify these bonuses but, this simply stinks. While the public may not be able to understand collateralized, bundled, equalized hub-dub-ary, I think it has recognized AIG and it’s bonus collecting executives for what they are – a bunch of greedy, entitled, legitimized crooks.