i just had to sound off on this topic for a moment.

ok, so we give AIG like a bajillion* dollars, and they turn around and give a tiny minute** portion of that to their executives.
and what's the problem exactly?

initially, it sounds like a terrible thing to do. something only a BIG BAD CORPORATE GIANT would do. oooo those evil corporations.

but wait... how can we give a ton of money to save a company and then tell them how to spend it?
for instance... last year, the taxpayers received a 'bailout' from the bush administration. from what i recall, it was something around $1200 a household. you got a check in the mail, you did whatever the hell you wanted with it, and then you paid taxes on it. me? i had the BEST DAY EVER at the sanrio store. READ: all the hello kitty backpacks and cell phone cases the government could buy.

now theoretically, people who got checks should have invested their money, or paid down debt, or whatever is considered a smart financial decision. but, being as that we're free-thinking individuals, we're given the oppotunity to do whatever we feel is best.
imagine the government giving us a check, but saying you can't spend it on XYZ. hey, i happen to think cases of barefoot bubbly is an investment in my future, but i could be wrong.

all i'm saying is, let's get back to what the REAL problem is here. a company has the right to do whatever they want, and spend whatever they want on whoever they want, and the second the government steps in on that, we are losing more rights. doesn't that worry anyone else?

and for the record, i don't think we should have given them the bailout in the first place. especially without researching how that money was going to be used.

*this is an actual figure. it's equal to like a whole lotta money.

**does it bother anyone else that 'minute' is spelled like 'minute'? i realize you can't tell the difference, since you can't hear me, but i am using 'minute' like itty-bitty. MY-NOOT.