I mean, here's a dude that was retired and the federal government approached him to take control of AIG. His salary is 1 (one) dollar a year.....and he got bitch-slapped by the congress over the issue of the bailout bonuses.

Keep in mind that Libby had absolutely nothing to do with the negotiations of these bonuses. The person that allowed AIG bonuses was treasury secretary Geithner.

So congress (the same group o' swell fellas that signed off on the bonuses) proceeds to insult and humiliate Libby on national TV. Man, that's ironic.

I feel bad for that guy. $1.00 / year isn't enough salary to be crucified in public.

Not really, I have a feeling that he is all part of a bigger game that the government is playing. I always feel like what we see and hear on the news is all a farce to direct our attention where they want it. There is a whole other ballgame being played in the background and Libby is no doubt part of that. I know, I sound like one of those tin-hat wearing conspiracy nuts, I'm really not. But I do resist believing most of what the government and the media tell me.

I feel a little sorry for him when taking the news at face value.

However, I feel much more sorry for us as taxpayers supporting a government that would give so much money in bailouts but not even take the time to put a few stipulations in place about how the money would be used.

How is that fair by any stretch of the imagination . . . especially considering without that bailout money those people would have a heck of a lot more to worry about then whether their hefty bonuses hit their bank accounts.

You have a tender heart, Plain, that dude is collecting big bucks from the taxpayer, you wanna bet.

A nice comment, Jack, this is all theatre of the absurd or of cruelty according to Antonin Artaud.

Libby should have spoke up more about the WHO voted the bail-out/etc in the first place.

Exactly what I was alluding to. I wouldn't have taken that ass-chewing so meekly if that had been me in front of hypocritical congress.

You have a tender heart, Plain, that dude is collecting big bucks from the taxpayer, you wanna bet.

He's not collecting anything from the taxpayers. Essentially, he's working for free. You could argue that he is to be rewarded with stock shares (in addition to the dollar-per-year salary)......but stock in AIG? That annual dollar is probably worth more.

Jodi, I can also be a little bit of a conspiracy theorist. I'm wondering if Treasury left the bonus provision in to specifically incite outrage from the public. This public outrage has led to congress passing a resolution that breaks Article I section 9 of the constitution. A conspiracy nut like me could see how this might be the first salvo in a broader plan of wealth re-distribution.

Jodi, I can also be a little bit of a conspiracy theorist. I'm wondering if Treasury left the bonus provision in to specifically incite outrage from the public. This public outrage has led to congress passing a resolution that breaks Article I section 9 of the constitution. A conspiracy nut like me could see how this might be the first salvo in a broader plan of wealth re-distribution.

Couldn't agree with you more Plain...