Ok, so here is what I understand of the AIG issue to this point....

[Indiana_Dem]

Already I'm having a GOP high school friend on Facebook questioning me with the GOP talking points on this bonuses issue.

The way I understand is this--there was a contract with the AIG employees that they would get these bonuses. The bailout bill was written prior to this administration and amendments were made with exemptions for the bonuses. I've read where the congressional committee/treasury was afraid of legal ramifications if the contract was not honored. They went ahead and included this exemption because of the possible legal ramifications. I've also read where the money from the bailout was not used for the bonuses but to pay on the bad debt (not that it really matters-it's all in the same pot).

I can appreciate the honoring of the contract. My husband lost his job from a factory closing. The company tried to back out of their contract and not pay the employees their severence pay or their retirement & healthcare for the remaining time on the contract. They had abruptly announced their closing. It was taken to court and the union won. But regarding the AIG situation, why didn't AIG renegotiate the contracts before the bailout bill was passed? ...unless there was a clause in the contract that denied renogotiations until the contract time was up...

IS this how you guys understand all of this?