Should AIG have to deal with such restrictions from the government?

Is the Earth round?

Please, enough rhetorical questions.

Of course they should have to deal with Government (read: Taxpayer) restrictions.

What are we, five years old?

Don't give him the chance to resign, boot him!!!!  Uncapped salaries is part of what got them in the position they were in to start with.

Hey, AIG, Go out of business.

This is even more outrageous. This dude deserves death by catapult. Is that still legal in some state? Fire his ass. And the rest of the board. Go to hell AIG and take your fail with you.

-pist

The only substantial reason the government subsidized AIG but let Lehman fail was because Goldman Sachs had huge AIG-related receivables. And of course, you all know who was the biggest contributor to the '08 Obama and numerous Democrats' campaigns. There was no way they were going to let Goldman get hurt. Isn't it funny how cavalier they are with your and my hard-earned taxpayer dollars in rewarding those who helped get them elected...

their money have no political color, their money have pain, lies, and even blood...

Rob , I'm sorry, but they control the politicians, not vice-versa...

AIG entered the game of swaps, to delay the implosion of the "financial orgy" backed by the mortgage bubble.

The system set by the bankster to-big-to-fail was like an onion layerd....with AIG just before the crash, and the bail-out by the taxpayers at the outer laye, wrapped around AIG.

Agreed. They whine when they need a bailout and they whine when they get the bailout and the lender applies conditions. 

Billion you mean not million.

I am all for these restrictions, but how about they do the same at every other industry we bailed out: banks, GM, Chrysler, etc. And while we're at it impose some pay increase restrictions for Congressmen and Senators.

My thoughts exactly, Chac.

So quit, @!$%#. Nobody's putting a gun to your head to stay there. You took govt money to bail yer azz out, live with it or do your job better.

I agree.  Finish paying back the loan we gave you and then you can do whatever you want. 

It's not like they aren't familiar with attaching strings to benefits. That's what they do for their products, they should be able to handle having some strings of their own for a change.

If they don't like it they can always join the ranks of the unemployed that they caused with their crazy investments.

Whiny bastard must not be used to working outside the golf course.

Give us our money back!!!

It absolutely is the right way to look at it. No doubt about it. It's got nothing to do with whether they're corrupt. The rules were made when the money was given. Pay the money back and do whatever you want.

How can they think they are "owed" an outrageous salary when they performed their job so poorly that the company had to be bailed out?

Besides if the company had failed - like it probably should have been allowed to do - they would have been unemployed with no benefits like millions of others in this country. At least they had the salaries/compensation packages that they could have lived on for awhile.

No sympathy. Enforce the agreement. If they want to look for other jobs, I say go for it. I'm sure jobs making millions a year are easy to find.

You do realize that Benmosche wasn't at AIG or the CEO when they made their decisions to involve themselves in financial products that caused their downfall right? You do appreciate the fact he was hired in August of 2009, i.e. well after the bailouts, and was offered the position at $10.5M a year? Again the government is showing their inability to act intelligently. You can't persuade someone to come work for you and then decide, oops that won't look good when the public sees his paycheck. They never should have given him the job in the first place if they had no intention of honoring an agreed salary.

Worrying about a "brain drain"...how many executives are out of workwhen thier companies failed...think about it, there is a huge replacement pool ready to start immediately.

Take your 1/2 million and be happy to have a job. Or hit the streets, there are a lot of people ready to take your place.

Toby, appreciate that but using the same argument at a more earthly level, would you condone it if someone agreed to hire you at an agreed salary of $35K then a few weeks later decided that you should only get $25K and I argue that there are tons of people on unemployment who would jump at that salary so you have to take the reduction or take a hike?

Understand, this guy was hired recently: August 2009 and our dumbazz leaders agreed to $10.5M and are now retracting that. He was not the CEO when the fertilizer hit the ventilator at AIG.

That's the way business is: Take it or leave it (or get your union to put some pressure on the boss). His whining sounds so adult.

"would you condone it if someone agreed to hire you at an agreed salary of $35K then a few weeks later decided that you should only get $25K"

There's a huge difference between barely getting by on $25k a year (in this economy) and "settling" for $500k. Let's get practical about the numbers here. Most of us could easily pay our bills with $500k. He works for a government/taxpayer assisted company (at the moment) - accept the deal or get out.

Well said Peter-1464073,

Is there no end to the corporate greed mentality? These assclowns make more than most of us could dream... and they do so on the back's of hard-working decent Americans whom earn pennies on the dollar compared to them. When the regular American worker fails or shows such huge incompetence, guess what? They fire his ass. But oh no, these Executives run around acting like they are above it all, and what do they do when they get cornered about it? Turn the blame on someone else.

The way Wall Street has handled our economy is nothing short of criminal. And we can thank US Government for that. So now that they are finally ratcheting down on them, and they can feel it, now they feel as though they have the right to complain. Well Mr. CEO, you don't. You don't have one iota of right in this regard, because we the people, whom are also paying for your mistakes, and also have to pay to clean up your mess, "say so".

It used to be the stockholders that had this power over you, alone. But now, since tax-payer dollars have been used to bail you out, we're all stockholders in your failed enterprise. So, that being said. Sit down, shut up, and deal, or get the hell out and let someone less greedy and less stupid stand up to do the job.

-pist

Greed or not, it boils down to what one expects when agreeing to do a job. If an employer, be they the Government seeking someone to push a company from the brink back to the healthy side, or an office worker being offered a salary, everyone should be entitled to the same respect.

If you offer someone the job like they did to Benmosche after the bailouts and agreed to pay him a salary of $10.5M then they should abide by that salary as distasteful as it is.

The Government knew this would be a sticking point from the get-go. It's just mindboggling to me they couldn't find someone willing to do it for less. But agreeing to something and then backtracking is just plain wrong.

Had this guy been the CEO when everything went tits up then I would 100% agree, but to set a precedent of hiring in people, agreeing to mutually acceptable terms and then reneging will just cause less and less able and willing people to want to provide services for anything involving government dollars.

I also don't really have a problem renegotiating salaries of those who were there before the bailouts as one can very realistically argue that without the bailouts, there wouldn't even be this discussion.

But anyone hired AFTER the bailout, deserves to be entitled to what was agreed upon. August 2009 definitely is well after the bailout. The government knew what they had to play with. They offered him the $10.5M they should deal with the public flak of having done so and not make HIM the scapegoat.

Hey lots of companies seem to have no problem hiring people at agreed upon conditions and are now implementing furlows, pay cuts, reduced working hours, etc. It's happening all over. Why is this fat cat any different from the working stiffs all around the country. Economic facts have changed, therefore your compensation has changed. Accept it or find another job. That's what the rest of us are dealing with.

Well said Brewmaster-1465125. I have several freinds that were forced to have their hours cut and take a 3-10% pay cuts. Hardworking people have to take a paycuts and reduced hours just to keep their jobs. I feel sorry for my friends, I feel sorry for the other hardworking people that this happening to. I don't feel sorry for this guy. In fact he should just leave so they can hire someone else at a lesser salary and cut down on the overhead.

I agree! I am so sick of people that make millions of dollars complaining. I have been laid off two times! And I a have a baby on the way, I would give a limb to have a job that is backed by the government and I make $500k a year.

$500K may seem ridiculous to some, but in the "executive world" that's a pittance. I hate to break it to you, but those people will have zero problems finding employment elsewhere.

BTW don't lump everyone together who makes a substantial income as having no comprehension of the value of money. There are a good number who do and who have no hang-ups about making substantial charitable contributions. Hatred can be so misplaced if you tar everyone with the same brush.

They may be able to get employment easily, but they still haven't show that they can run a company in all it's aspects: profit, social responsibly, and eithically. The fact that they give lots of money to a school to get a building named for them cuts little with me.

voter- in-la--you sound like peter17 and jeremy...defenders of the financial orgy initiators, perpetrators and developers...

give me a break.

let him and his talented employees go find a better place...welfare

So how is keeping large companies afloat taking away your freedoms? Quit spouting rhetoric from Faux News and think for yourself. The Republicans have managed to grow government at an astounding rate as well including creating the biggest government agency ever, Homeland Security. So don't blame the Dems for everything there's plenty to spread around for all of them.

I agree about reading a history book... how about you start. We are in the position we are in because people let the previous Administration destroy the very fabric this country was built on. Why don't you look up what the definition is of a government that is run by corporations? While you are at it, look up the history of governments that have allowed the military to be privatized. You should be shaking in your boots, but not because this Administration is trying to derail the mess they were handed when they took over. They aren't perfect, but they aren't demons either.

As to this particular article: I don't get how the dweeb in charge of the companies who got bailed out agreed to $10.5 million for this "exec" in the first place. All these companies need to realize that poor business practices on THEIR part led to their situation. I was never in favor of bailing them out anyway. The money should have gone to mainstreet lenders not wall street cheaters.