American politicians have locked themselves in the great 'Class Struggle' debate without discussing class or struggle.  AIG received something on the order of $173 billion in taxpayer subsidized funds to keep their private enterprise afloat. 

You see, if AIG didn't receive large sums of money from the government AIG as a private enterprise would no longer exist in the form it exists today.  AIG's hand went out to the government and the government responded in kind by giving them welfare checks.

If this were private citizens receiving a government handout, we could all bemoan the laziness of the individual receiving the check.  We could say welfare is bad because those people ended up where their at due to lack of initiative and seeking the same opportunities as successful people in America. 

That argument is pre-built for us. 
It's been argued so many times it's cliche. 
It doesn't mean anything anymore, so it's ready to hand for anyone willing to shake their fist hard enough.

This instance doesn't really appear to be private individuals asking for a handout though.  AIG is a corporation so the private individuals seeking the assistance hide behind paperwork establishing a legal identity.  The media hides this from the public by reporting AIG is one of the companies in America that's "too big to fail."

For that reason, enormous sums of welfare finds its way into the hands of the people making up the corporation called the American International Group Incorporated. 

AIG is too big to fail!!!

What does that mean?  It could mean, and 'too big to fail' seems to imply, if companies like AIG went bankrupt the United States of America (and the world seems to be implied as well) will dissolve into some unstated anarchy while life on the planet degenerates into something out of a Mad Max movie.

'Too big to fail' might also indicate the people invested in the corporation called 'AIG' have a lot of political swing in the United States of America.  They have so much political swing, in fact, they can invoke Corporate Socialism without talking about socialism at all. 

Another word for Corporate Socialism might be Facism.

The people invested heavily in AIG (the same people who reaped enormous profits from AIG) have found themselves "heavily-exposed" (meaning they can't produce what their balance sheets say they're worth) and now their lifestyle is getting ready to change because 'credit is freezing up ya'll.'  These people are ready to feel a pinch they don't want to have to live with. 

"The pinch" they're feeling is the prospect of being a bit more like everyone else.  That's why they looked for the subsidies for their own lifestyle which is grossly out-of-step with average American lifestyles (by the way, average American lifestyles are grossly out-of-step with the lifestyles of much of the rest of the world as well.)

This brings us to the current American political debate about "Class Struggle" that mentions neither class nor struggle. 

Capitol Hill is all worked up over $100+ million bonuses AIG recently paid to their employees.  Although 'employee' is a word too closely associated with 'person' or 'citizen' (since really- we all are employees of someone or something;) therefore, the media's demonized term du jour (referring to every red-blooded American's current enemy) now appears to be 'Executive.' 

Keep your ear open for how media uses the word 'Executive.'  I predict, at our current pace, executives will find some other word to refer to their own position by the end of Summer 2009.  Look at Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley's recent comment about the 'Executives' at American International Group:

"The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them (is) if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

He's suggesting these Americans (rich Americans) should consider honorable suicide for dishonorable actions they committed.  What was the nature of their dishonor?  They simply want to maintain their current lifestyle at the expense of every other American who can't afford to live the same lifestyle. 

How far does that leaf fall from Senator Grassley's tree?  Senator Grassley has been a United States Senator since 1981.  As a United States Senator, he makes a minimum of $174,000 a year as of 2009.  A Senator's salary was just under $61,000 per year when Senator Grassley started his career as a United States Senator. 

He's worked in government since 1959. 

Basic economics teaches us: people in government don't produce anything.  They're immediate recipients of taxpayer subsidized lifestyles.  They negatively impact our country's economic balance sheet with their salaries and expenses. 

Where are the Senators putting their money where their mouths are and lowering their own salaries for the sake of the country?

In 2009, Senators in the United States of America will cost taxpayers more than $17 million in salary alone.  Don't forget their: free postage, free airplane flights and free staff accounts.  Also, don't forget their five to six month a year work cycle.  These individuals live lifestyles far removed from average American citizens, but they don't include themselves in the outrage because 'they're trying to fix the problems ya'll.'

And how's the problem being interpreted now? 

Lavish lifestyles subsidized at the expense of average American taxpayers.  In order to address this problem, American politicians are discussing taxing the bonuses given out by AIG.  The underlying outrage stems from "Class Struggle" yet the debate in this country never mentions class or struggle. 

The likelihood such a debate would solve our problems seems unlikely; however, if we can't bring ourselves to say "Class Struggle" at the very least we might take a similar approach as our ancestors who struggled with this same problem during the Great Depression. 

Part of the solution then was breaking up monopolies by enforcing antitrust laws.  It might seem today, monopolies are no longer the problem, rather, now companies that are "too big to fail" are the problem.  It might be time to start focusing on how to prevent companies from getting "too big to fail" in the future.

Why stop at banks?  Auto manufacturers have been proven "too big to fail" also.  It would seem any company can get "too big to fail" in America and that's apparently a problem needing address immediately.