Now Republicans in Congress want information from a Democratic administration.

What a swell opportunity to give them the big, stiff Cheney/Rove finger.

Executive privilege !!

Actually, Geithner was involved in the original AIG bailout which had set the terms for the bonuses to be doled out.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=antGHYUBhUn4&refer=home

Bernanke turned to Geithner, 47, president of the New York Fed, to carry out the rescues of Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc., and to help stem market turmoil after the decision to allow Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. to fail. Geithner was involved in the weekend’s government rescue of Citigroup Inc. and oversees most of the Fed’s special lending programs set up this year to channel more than $1 trillion to banks and other financial institutions.

Since Geithner knew about Liddy's plans to pay out the company's now-infamous bonuses before they became public on Saturday -- and since the bonuses have been common knowledge in the media for months -- it's worth asking how directly Treasury was involved in okaying the payouts.

Interesting. Considering everyone (media, republicans, etc.) has known about the bonuses for months, isn't it more germane to ask "Why is the media pushing this now instead of last December when it could have made a difference?"

Really, Elana, can you differentiate between bonuses and retention payments? Just because some doofus in Congress wants to call them bonuses doesn't make them bonuses. These were contractual payments negotiated in early 2008 that the REPUBLICANS and idiotic Democrats want to deny.

And do you see no difference between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve? You seem to be using the two interchangeably--as if they refer to the same group of folk and the same responsibilities.

Here's a question for you, Elana. Does a ROI only pertain to the executive branch (Treasury) or can it also apply to the Federal Reserve (Bernanke) who in September 2008 made the offer to the AGI board?

I heard Rush Limbaugh today suggesting that these bonuses are the same as earmarks. Aside from the utter idiocy of that comment --he was defending the bonuses. The odd thing is, since the Democrats won the White House and Congress, Limbaugh has been a HUGE (ROFL, I know) critic of earmarks.

So, apparently, now el Rushbo supports earmarks --and A(p)IG bonuses.

I voted for Obama and support the majority of his agenda but I have to admit that he is in danger of severely dropping the ball of this TARP/Bailout issue. During the campaign when the first bailout was being pushed through congress he stated that there needed to be transparency and accountability.

Last I checked we, the taxpayers, still don't know where the vast majority of the billions spent have gone, and we have no idea what the companies who received the money have done with it, other than pay bonuses.

If he doesn't exert control over companies receiving bailout money the american public will start to judge him harshly for what this is turning out to be - which is literally giving the guys who got us into this mess taxpayer financed blank checks.

This bonus thing is so absurd and beyond the pale. Why on earth are they doing it knowing the major fallout that is occuring?

I think I figured it out. The glory days of million dollar bonuses are over. The glory days of making millions for doing nothing, except destroying a company are over. These people in finance realize it. The bubble has gone up in a mushroom cloud. They will never have the opportunity to make 1/10th of what they made in the past, so they are getting their last couple million out and saying adious, because they will never see these kind of bucks again.

I bet that is what's going on. They know the party is sooo over, so they want their last swipe at the cash. I hope that we start seeing some indictments in the near future. They need to pay this cash to keep these f*ck ups? That's absurd. It's all a game to get as much cash out because the glory days are over.

A, why is it a fiasco, and B, why should Obama pay anything for it. AIG got most of their taxpayer money from the Bushfools.

But could Democrats conceivably vote against LaTourette and McCotter's move?

Why would they?

As a shareholder, I'd like to know what the terms of the Fed's deal are.

I suppose it would be poor taste to dredge up the old question of why Obama felt compelled to surround himself with milquetoast moderates and insiders. I'd be content with offering Geithner up for sacrifice any time now.

The Obama camp tends to eventually adjust to new circumstances rather impressively, but they're not quick on their feet. Think back to the first couple years of the Bush administration -- noxious as they were, they were fast as lightning.

Jeesus friggin' Christ. I'm so damn tired of the speculation to create a story.

When someone says "Have you been wondering whether Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is leaving some key details out in the chronology of his negotiations with AIG CEO Edward Liddy?" it starts to sound like you're being suckered in by gossip going on around you.

The CBS article you are referring to has the following:

"Ashooh said the retention program does not include anyone in the firm's financial products business, the tiny arm of the company that torpedoed AIG with its high-risk, bad loans."

So, you're now trying to tie two different retention programs together for some reason. Maybe you didn't realize the difference.

The retention bonuses in question today are referring to the financial products business that was previously not to be included.

I heard today on ABC radio that Geithner only found out last week about the bonuses.

I have the audacity to that hope President Obama pays enough to awaken from his Presidential power drunken stupor and governs as the Progressive he should be.

I'll take a stab at explaining the uproar over a relatively small part of the bailout package.

What worries people is that millions of dollars of bonus, amounts that may only be earned over a lifetime by most of us, in the face of what seems to be overt criminal fraud is taken by spectators (taxpayors) as proof that the bad guys are still in charge. The sense of impotence in the face of financial rape is palpable. This is the deepest and most essential fear we are all living under, forced as we are to depend on Geithner to protect us from further damage, that he is incapable (or controverted) to the task, witness the bonus.

It is, if you will, a pale but related experience that woman have known since the dawn of the civilization. Not rape, but rape without accountability, no less retribution, watching the perpatrator laughing with the police after the DA refuses to bring charges.

I contend that those who poopoo the reaction underestimate the deep fear and rage this bonus triggers in its victims who, in the face of the almost ridiculuous not to say contradictory statements made by Geithner, are left only with these facts on the ground to judge the progress or lack thereof against what must surely be counted as one of the greatest injuries to civilization in the modern era.

Because we don't have a responsibility to keep a grip on our fears and anger? We should allow the self-serving media to whip up mass hysteria just to have power over the public. Come on...this too will pass.