Readers Respond: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7

More reader responses to the "Tone Deaf?" post and my question about what the political up-side is for the Obama Administration in downplaying the AIG bonuses fiasco:

TPM Reader EM:

Years ago, I worked with the (retired) highest ranking "civilian" in Treasury. He used to tell me that they would bring these gigantic budgets before the Congress, and the Congressmen would argue about the amount for postage. Why postage? Because it was a small enough number for them to understand. I think the same is true for the bonuses dust-up. We're all baffled by the size and scope of the financial crisis so we're going to beat the bonuses issue to death?

I'd much rather see TPM and others try to get their arms around the bigger issues... bring clarity to them, and help us all understand. It might make it more bearable and begin a constructive discussion on to how to fix our failed financial system.

TPM Reader DW:

Whether or not Rahm and Axelrod are politically tone deaf, I'm not sure. But I'm absolutely confident they're 100% right.

These bonuses are some sort of terrible joke, but they're small potatoes compared to the rest of our problems, even our problems related directly to AIG. Spitzer was right, the bonuses aren't the real story, it's the overall structure of the AIG bailout we should be concerned with.

Unfortunately, as much as Josh tried to take credit for hammering this point before things became "all bonus all the time," I really think you guys have dropped the ball on this one. You guys are just as (if not especially) guilty of some counter productive bonus-outrage-promotion, and it's making a mess of what we should be talking about (something you guys in the past have done a good job of focusing for everyone).

If the Obama administration succeeds in convincing this country that the AIG bonuses are a big distraction, and that there are other, more pressing things to address (including their own oversight over the broad structure of the Wall Street bailouts), they will do us all a great big favor.

TPM Reader CB:

There is no question that Axelord and Rahm's comments suggest that the WH is tone deaf on the AIG bonus issue. It's not just a distraction - it's something that A) happened on Obama's watch, B) suggests that Geithner is not totally aware of what is going on at Treasury, and C) is completely antithetical to the "Change" platform on which Obama was elected. Obama was elected because people were tired of the same old-same old, not because people wanted to hear "it is what it is and we can't do much about it." We own 80% of AIG, and when is Treasury going to start acting like it?

TPM Reader JC:

This is a major mis-step for the Obama administration. Look, it's simple: all these people worried about their jobs, mortgages, etc ... may not understand shite about credit default swaps; they won't know what "counterparty risk" means. But they'll be able to understand that the Obama administration and Democrats are giving billions to bail out the likes of AIG, and that these people, in turn, are getting multi-million dollar bonuses for, you know, fucking things up in the first place! The AIG bonuses are a simple heuristic for understanding the bailout and the problems associated with it; it's easy to digest and even easier, once digested, for someone to remain pissed off. Remember, we're talking about *millions* in bonuses; the people sitting around their table would happy to keep their under-$100K jobs......what could Axelrod be thinking?