I just have no words anymore. This sort of theivery is going on everywhere. Even here locally, some city employees received a 67% raise in pay while up in the state capitol they're trying to balance our state budget by cutting, among other things, the school budgets. It's just a sad state of affairs everywhere.

well...if we killed them, they might stop.

i am as much to blame for the lack of righteous bloodshed as anyone else, i must admit.

i will hope for awful things to befall their families.

If he earned $667,000,000 for the company, the American taxpayers should want Citigroup to pay him $100,000,000 to have him stay.

It is in the best interest of the American taxpayer to have this man as an asset to the company.

I personally own Citigroup stock. Actually, technically we all own it as taxpayers. As owners of Citigroup, we should all want that guy to get every penny that he wants. If Citi doesn't pay him what he wants, Goldman Sachs will. If Goldman steals him, he wont be helping Citigroup and he won't be helping the American taxpayer. Believe me, as American taxpayers we want this guy on our side.

And of course its easy to be jealous of a guy about to cash a $100,000,000 paycheck, but let's be real - we'd all take it if we could, too.

And as far as hoping for awful things to befall their families - that isn't ever cool. Ever.

Right, it's easy to be jealous of a guy who get a 100 mln bonus, and yes, I'd want it as well. But the situation here is slightly different:

- 100mln is 15% of 667mln. That 667mln is pre tax, so what the bank actually made from it is a lot less. Which means his share of the net profit is far higher than 15%. A bit much to pay as a bonus to 1 man, don't you think?

- this is the guy who put a huge statue in his front yard without the proper permits (1 site I found mentioned that he had to tear it down after plenty of complaints by neighbours)

- Also, citigroup hasn't even approved this bonus yet. Nevertheless, Mr. Hall is pushing them to or he'll leave the company. Basically giving the finger to the US government and tax payers. He doesn't care what the government or the tax payer may think about a 100mln bonus to someone in a bank that was about to fail, he just wants his money.

Success by Citigroup is hardly due to the efforts of a single person. In fact without the public bailout money they may still be in huge financial trouble. The bailout money saved the company.

It would seem the US taxpayer should be the recipient of the $100 million if anyone.

The idea of rewarding executives yearly with more money than they can spend in a lifetime is a ridiculous concept.

It seems to feed the ego more than anything else since these executives already make a fortune.

Great point. The problem is that while the American taxpayers did bail out Citigroup, we can't help them pay back their debt to us. If they gave that $100,000,000 back to us, their top exec would leave, the company would have more problems, and we'd have to dump the money right back.

Their top exec is hardly a rare species. There are many, many execs with financial skills that can take his place because the staff that really creates these successes is still in place.

We have railed against some labor unions who, like the auto guys (and most of the trades in NYC) have obtained totally unrealistic wages and benefits far in excess of their worth.

This is exactly the same thing at the top of the pyramid.

These folks need a wake up call as do the overpaid union people. Let the over compensated exec go, replace him with the guy under him and start using that 100 million to pay back the taxpayer loan. The sky won't fall.

That would be a good lesson for all concerned.

I'm in the wrong line of work.