I ask now is this right?

Hello there Granny, how are things going with you my dear? I hope life is treating you well. And thanks for giving me the opportunity to answer this question...

I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY OF THOSE BAST&RDS... I SAY WE GET RID OF ALL GOVERNMENT LOL

WOULDN'T WE BE A LOT BETTER OFF AND NOT HAVING THIS PROBLEM NOW AND ALL OF THE OTHER STUFF BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROAT??? THE WORLD AS I SEE IT!

AND YEH, WHAT THE HELL! THE WOMEN SEEM TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THE MEN...BUT DAMN...WE CAN'T SHOOT'EM LOL SO I GUESS THAT ONLY LEAVES ONE REASON THAT THERE GOOD FOR HUH? OH HEAVEN HELP ME! LMAO DID I JUST TYPE THAT? OOPS! OK, PLEASE LET'S NOT INVITE WOMEN LIKE NANCY PELOSI...

Frankly trying to tell people about AIGs' managerial talent is just this side of hysterically funny, all that wonderful multimillion dollar talent getting those huge bonuses, and they ran the company into the ground. If that's businesses idea of what talented managers do, no wonder they are in trouble.

Look there are hundreds of qualified people from companies who have already closed who could do an equally bad job for less money, this isn't a tight market for lousy managers.

As far as the ruling by the Treasury Department goes, that first round of money under the Bush administration is what they are talking about, that money wasn't given with strings. That policy was changed under the Obama stimulus package.

Bush had an absolute belief that business would do the right thing.

No matter what proof there was to the contrary.

One of the other answers outlined to dilemma facing AIGO from the employee retention perspective. Your point is how can anyone deserve a bonus with the huge losses the company sustained.

The source of the losses resides in two areas: poor investments meaning money loaned or invested in other companies CodsCDOs meaning collateralized default obligations. The poor investments likely resulted from the usual poor judgement and untimely decision making. The CDO story is one of over simplified investments which likely failed to recognize poor correlations. Your point would be that the foregoing doesn't sound like a good excuse. And you'd probably be right. The only other fact pertaining is that everyone else was doing the same thing which brings on the business problem of not wanting to sit on the sidelines. Still no justification.

What's possible? Either Congress or some administrative body will make a bunch of rules to rebalance the forces so that trading can go on while not allowing new trading methods to be used without approval.

Well, if you really want all of the taxpayer money given to them to be wasted, then by all means, stop paying bonuses to managerial talent. Let them move on to greener pastures and then AIG can bring in whoever is willing to work for below market salaries. This will certainly bring great talent from all over to fix the ailing company. Sure, it makes sense.