What the Republicans need to do is to shine the light on how the Democrats enabled and continue to enable these payments – that is to get the message across the the Democrats are hypocrites – and even more than hypocrites, are actually maliciously starting a witch hunt of witches that they created themselves.

This is a good start, but certainly not enough.

Republicans need to continue to jump up and down and do whatever they can to expose this right now – this is Reichstag fire territory, if we don’t stand up the Republican will get burned down, as well as our Republic.

And as for the AIG recipients – when the political party in power goes nuclear, there aren’t going to be many survivors left – and individual merit has nothing to do with casualities.

AIG smoking crack is bad, but the DEMOCRATS are EVIL for importing, refining, and distributing the crack. (AIG using its insurance business to fund a hedge fund is bad, but the Dems are responsible for giving us the regulatory framework that allowed and in fact encouraged AIG to do it.)

Most of us here are all for personal responsibility. Cool. Lets be real, though. Junkies are junkies because the drug takes control. They need help, because left alone they will rot. Well, the bankers that a lot of you want to eat are junkies. They needed our help. The Democrats fought tooth and nail to protect Frannie (Fannie + Freddie), which was the dealer. Laws that governed the wall between banks and investment firms where weakened under the DEMOCRAT controlled congress.

Stop being fooled. AIG is not polite, sure, but save the outrage for the people who deserve the anger directed at them, which isnt the bankers, but their enablers, the incompatent men and women who infest Congress and the White House.

The Democrats complain about the bonuses; the Republicans say, right on – and by the way, you Democrats are the ones who approved these bonuses in the first place, so you should be angry at yourselves.

And as for “interference”since the law does provide for abrogation of contracts if the company goes insolvent; it is not unreasonable to apply a similar concept here to reduce or modify the bonus plan. I wouldn’t want to make the a practice, but exceptional circumstances warrant a proportionate exception response

Given the economic plight of the company, I don’t see serious moral hazard in modifying the contracts; what is the real hazard is the brownshirt outrage that is being deliberately and maliciously stirred up by the Democrats to cover up their complicity. That’s not proportionate and endangers the republic by inciting mob passions.

The bonuses are “retention” bonuses not “performance” bonuses. My understanding is the bonuses they are talking about are paid in order to keep the employees. The bonuses have nothing to do with performance.

PS The video is no longer available.

If I understand the situation correctly, there is a legally binding contract between AIG and some of their employees where, if the these employees stay with AIG, then they get a bonus. Is the only way out of the contract to fire the employees? (Not necessarily a bad idea, but it would be extremely difficult to find and put in place all the replacements while the company is trying to get back on its feet.)

and they should raise unholy hell in explaining to the public exactly why, A, the Dems are doing it and, B, they, the Republicans are fighting it. If I don’t see (R) representatives on every news channel tomorrow, I’m going to be VERY disappointed.

I say pull a Pontious Pilate, vote “present” and wash your hands of such a vote; after all, voting “present” is to emulate former U.S. and IL state Senator Barack Hussein Obama, no?