Was this not the point of the super-duper bailout plan?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

So A.I.G.'s $165 million 'take-what-you-can-before-we-go-under' executive compensation scheme has gone through. But shouldn't we have expected this? The bailout plan wasn't exactly sound to begin with, which was by no means the government's fault as they were pressured for time. But doesn't this 'stimulate the economy' as well? If we give these big spenders more money to spend, that'll stimulate the economy for sure won't it? They can continue to fly in their private jets, taking long vacations in the beaches of Los Angeles while 'stimulating' the tourism economy, simply spend like they usually do.

I don't support limitations on executive pay, but you'd think that when your company's failing as badly as AIG is, you'd spend your bailout money to keep that company afloat past the end of this economic recession. President Obama set a salary cap of $500,000 on executive compensation for companies under the bailout plan, but A.I.G. officials have bypassed that through the excuse that the "bonuses and “retention pay” had been agreed to in early 2008 and were for the most part legally required." Sounds like a familiar excuse doesn't it? Yes, President I-will-end-all-pork-projects, I'm looking at you.

I'm sure most of us have some bit of greed and economic conservatism in us though. But if you were that high paid executive poised to receive a healthy bonus courtesy of the taxpayers, would you take it knowing it would allow you to escape the economic recession and any ill effects should the company fall apart or would you spend it all on your company, hoping that you get by the economic recession and earn your money afterwards? I'm sure not all of us are entirely righteous.