Talk:AIG bonus payments controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope of Article[edit]

Edits related to "who is responsible" for bank deregulation should refer here rather than starting a whole new thread again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Late-2000s_financial_crisis&action=edit&section=7

Note: Republicans AND democrats BOTH contributed to deregulation and BOTH republican AND democratic presidents provided troubled asset relief. Keep this article about AIG controversy only. Thank you.

Off it goes[edit]

OK, I've moved a lengthy section from the AIG article into this title. I've also removed some of the more blatant NPOV issues, though a few more may still need to be dealt with. No doubt this will continue to get public attention for awhile, and the article will be edited into hopefully better shape as the situations develops further. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal seems potentially POV especially because no laws were broken. Should we maybe move it to AIG bonus payments controversy? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objection at all. Please don't forget to redirect and also change the main article template in the appropriate section at the AIG article. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an active attempt to blame Bush, when everyone knows it was BO & Geithner. This should be changed.151.185.60.250 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well since 'everyone knows' then finding sources should be a cinch. I await with baited breath you return with these thousands of sources Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please share your sources with us if you feel the article has a balance issue. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is still missing is a section that deals with, if known, who authorized/negotiated the bonuses and who received them - level of executives, average payout, etc. Rklute (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

Why is there a section Responses from lawmakers and another one Response from state lawmakers? Shouldn't these be merged, or am I missing something? Itsmejudith (talk)

It should be broken up into something like Comments by lawmakers and Actions by lawmakers (including Cuomo's subpoenas and Congress's bonus tax bill). JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should cite if politicians who are criticizing the bonuses voted for or against the bailout[edit]

The article cites many politicians criticizing the AIG bonuses. The article should also mention whether each of them voted for or against the bailout. Does anyone know where a list of how they voted is on the internet? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is such a source for the Senate vote. I just added it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it might be the House vote, or, it might just be an amendment to the bill. I won't add it to the article without being sure. Does anyone know if this is the final vote or just an amendment? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using either to mention whether or not someone voted for the bill in this article would be a clear cut case of OR Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's original research. It's the most accurate source for that information. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how accurate the information is. What your doing is classic original systhesis which is a form of OR. You're putting two unrelated references together, one with absolutely nothing to do with thie article, to try and lead the reader to believe something because you believe it is relevant for your own personal reasons. I suggest you take the time to read our OR policy since it appears you don't understand it if you think having an 'accurate' source is sufficient to prevent OR. (Also a primary source is rarely the best source). Now if you have a source which at least links and mentions the way people voted in relation to the controversy then sure we can talk but until then... Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite arguably irrelevant who voted for the bailout. The issue of the bonus payments is a separate one from the bailout as a whole. Nonetheless I decided to let stand the notes about who voted for the bailout and who voted against the bailout, so long as they're based upon a reliable source. As an aside, I must say it's interesting to see such virtually unanimous sentiments among legislators who otherwise hold widely disparate positions. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not irrelevant at all. Ron Paul, who voted against all the bailouts, gave some very good reasons for doing so. If I ever find a quote from him that's specifically about the AIG bonuses, I will add it to the article. Any politician who voted for the bailout but who then complains about how the bailout money is being spent is being extremely hypocritical. It's well known that big corporations love to pay out giant bonuses, even to executives who ruined the company. Anyone who is surprised at these bonuses is too stupid to be holding political office. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your POV is duly noted. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added this to the article: "Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-Michigan) said in a speech to Congress, "Every single Democrat in this House that voted for that bill voted to approve and protect those AIG bonuses." [20]" So it is relevant who voted for the bailout, and who voted against it. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is a clip from C-span that made its way to youtube? Whoah. How is that a reliable source for establishing this is an "encyclopedically" noteworthy remark? Commentary can be included when properly sourced, notable and relevant, but even then commentary shouldn't be looked upon as "opening the door" to include new facts, details, figures, claims or such via original research. This is difficult with events that are still unfolding, but content and sourcing policies should not be relaxed here or in any article in order to bulk-up content. Reliable sourcing that conforms with policy is necessary. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically the source is a Republican congressman. So if a congressman says that a particular bill which passed the House is relevant to a controversy, Wikipedia should accept that without question or doubt? This is clearly original research; it's an unwarranted synthesis WP:SYN. So far the sources cited here are all from Republicans. A fairer and more objective way is to note that so far it's Republicans who are saying that they are related. How about we just report what they say without stating it as fact and accepting it as fact to justify further unwarranted edits? Ethereal (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could find notable commentators who are writing or saying that politicians are being hypocritical for supporting the bailouts and opposing the bonuses and then add their comments to the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great idea. Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it's find to add commentators saying that politicans are being hypocritical for supporting the bailouts and opposing the bonuses, do note this doesn't mean adding how each politican voted is acceptable. It would however probably be okay to wikilink to the bailout bill which would I presume have sources or external links which mention how each person voted Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIG Response Section[edit]

Where is the AIG response. I realize that AIG officials said nothing or very little to clarify their position but this section includes much more than appropriate under this title. Last time I checked Dana Perino does not represent AIG nor does Rush Limbaugh. Article includes a direct quote by Limbaugh promoting torturing people when he was referring to a line in the show 24. made little changes accordingly. Now being an inclusionist, I haven't deleted any content but I suggest moving those comments that does not pertain to this section to a new section on pundits comments on the AIG 2009 bounses debacle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malmaa (talk • contribs) 04:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section is titled AIG's responses and counter-responses. If you want to split the AIG responses and the counter-responses into separate sections, go ahead. If you want to add more official AIG responses, you could add some quotes from AIG CEO Edward Liddy when Congress interviewed him yesterday. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Malmaa, this section should be reconstructed to pertain only to AIG responses. AIG's reaction to this issue is extremely important. I came to the article to find out what defense AIG was using to distribute bonuses, and was hoping this section would contain revealing input from AIG, if available. But the counter-responses take over this section and really belong in their own section. Perhaps "Counter responses to AIG's decision on bonuses", or whatever. I have no problem with only a tiny amount of info in this AIG response section, as long as it is accurate and well-sourced. We can always add to it as AIG releases more info whether via press, congressional hearings, internal memos, etc. Does anyone have a reason that the counter responses should not be moved to their own section? Thank you. Tell someone (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free begin reconstructing it.--using, of course, WP's core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. This article is less than two days old, and much remains to be done. Among other things, I easily imagine it could readily be sectioned differently. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I killed most of the bullshit Limbaugh quote because it took up more space than even the AIG repsponses and was largely irrelevant editorial bullshit and name calling. I'm still not sure if the person who put this quote up was a supporter of Limbaugh or trying to make him look bad, either way Limbaugh's viewpoints on anything past the relevant discussion (the AIG bonuses) are completely irrelevant and unnecessary, hence removed. The basis of the inclusion remains intact: Limbaugh defended the bonuses. We don't need to muddy up the page with 'rumors' he's 'heard' and who he believes to be part of the Nazi party or a Communist. If people give a fuck about any of his viewpoints, they can tune into his circus sideshow themselves. 67.98.176.66 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should remain in the introduction[edit]

"Many politicians have expressed outrage at the bonuses. However, in a speech to Congress, Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-Michigan) pointed out that many of these politicians actually voted for the bailout that funded the bonuses. [4]"

The hypocrisy of voting to fund these bailouts, and then complaining about the bonuses, is fascinating, and this should remain in the intro.

Grundle2600 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is that anyone who voted to fund the TARP who then later complains about how one-thousandth of it (00.1%) is used, that such a legislator is automatically a hypocrite. Well, it's a good bit of a stretch. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're running for Congress, please don't campaign on Wikipedia. Why is there a need to quote that particular GOP congressman in the introduction? It's like having Dick Cheney's quotes that Iraq may have been responsible for 9/11 attacks in the introduction to that article. Ethereal (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If McCotter's comments belong in the introduction, then so do Barney Frank's comments about the first bailouts being given out by the Bush administration without Congressional oversight. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with the above two to a large extent. While these comments would be appropriat in the article, they originate from two people and don't appear to have widespread coverage and therefore their relevance in the intro which is supposed to summarise the key points is questionable. Seems a clear cut case of WP:UNDUE to a minority viewpoint to me. As it stands, this is made even more ridiculous by the omission of any mention of the controversial attempts to legislate to recover the bonuses which hs clear received much more widespread coverage. Your personal view on the matter is of course as irrelevant as Kenosis's and everyone else. Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this discussion, but I read the "The article should cite if politicians who are criticizing the bonuses voted for or against the bailout" section above, and I must ask, why is it so controversial to mention that many of these representatives voted for the bailout? It's extremely noteworthy and encyclopedic that there's this much Congressional outrage over a provision that the virtually identical Congress approved. Yes, it's small compared to the overall bailout size, but generally speaking, if the overwhelming majority of Congress is "outraged" by a provision of a bill, it generally doesn't make it through. It is therefore of interest to new readers that many of these representatives voted for the bailout, and frankly, it just sounds like POV-pushing to try to keep that out. Just my two cents. MrVoluntarist (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: it's not so much the "hypocrisy" of having voted for the bailout, just the strangeness of the phenomenon (outrage over a bill their own members just approved), and it doesn't matter whether McCotter made this argument; it's relevant whether a Congressman brought it up or not. MrVoluntarist (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International commentary[edit]

It would be good to include some commentary from the most important international press. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Constitutionality question[edit]

This is a source that probably ought to be included, as Lawrence Tribe seems to be backing off from his initial endorsement of the 90% tax bill's constitutionality. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/law-professor-who-advised-obama-says-house-aig-bill-may-be-unconstitutional/ -Toptomcat (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. No objection to its inclusion, although I think it would be more reliable to get a more direct source of Lawrence Tribe's position than NY Magazine's Greg Sargent's blog statement that he had a phone conversation with Tribe in which Tribe said such and such. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Source[edit]

I learned of a new source that appears relevant to this article today. [1]. Part of the intro/pseudo-abstract: "Almost a year after A.I.G.’s collapse, despite a tidal wave of outrage, there still has been no clear explanation of what toppled the insurance giant. The author decides to ask the people involved—the silent, shell-shocked traders of the A.I.G. Financial Products unit—and finds ..." GRBerry 14:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag[edit]

This article starts off completely biased...

"...Barack Obama voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,...[h]owever, after reading "line by line" and signing the stimulus bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama pretended to be shocked and outraged at the bonuses...." Pretended is linked to "crocodile tears." Regardless of the President's reaction, this language is extremely immature and throws out a very biased opinion. User:P. Musgrave 02:14, 19 September 2010

If Obama was telling the truth about reading bills line by line to prevent any waste from happening, then the term "crocodile tears" is accurate. Reliable sources report that Obama has taken both sides on this issue, so the article should reflect that. Without this information, the article falsely implies that Obama was being sincere when he expressed shock and outrage at the bonuses. Since he read the bill line by line before signing it, his surprise and outrage at the bonsues must have been fake. So the term "crocodile tears" is accurate. 71.182.186.180 (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not meant to show either side of the issue; only when Barack Obama said in response to the AIG bonuses. The use of the term "crocodile tears" is also inflammatory and biased according to everyone here but you. Please stop trying to edit Barack Obama's response. -OmegaflaerX —Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaflareX (talk • contribs) 01:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on AIG bonus payments controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on AIG bonus payments controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on AIG bonus payments controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AIG bonus payments controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AIG bonus payments controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AIG_bonus_payments_controversy&oldid=1197146928"