AIG execs should be ashamed

[lawrocket 3]

Hey, me, too. But then they wouldn't pay as much in taxes. It's their respomsibility to not be tax cheats and maximize the income taxes that they could be paying and live up to their social eresponsibilities.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Hey, me, too. But then they wouldn't pay as much in taxes. It's their respomsibility to not be tax cheats and maximize the income taxes that they could be paying and live up to their social eresponsibilities.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Well there are parts of the world where governments reinterpret contracts politically. Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia come to mind. I know things are tough in US, but I hope they are not there yet.

Thats I nice laundry list of gov't that I assume are goverened by dictators. For good measure lets add N korea and China

Unlike the countries listed above In the US we have a legal system. Just because someone has a "contract" that doesn't mean that it's valid. Thats what the courts and lawyers are for.

Just because you think a contract is a contract and thats the final decision. Back in the day we heard a term regarding construction contracts that went something like "Just because it says so that doesn't mean what it is.

I'm not a Lawyer or even someone specializing in contract law how ever I did sleep at the holiday inn last night. Unless you are a lawyer and you know what the AIG contracts say, well how the hell do you know what the you talking about.



R.I.P.

Actually only Cuba and Zim are dictatorships. What it is is a list of countries who ignore property and contract law when it suits them.

Quote

This isn't about politic's its about the law and due process.

That is pretty funny. If it was about the law and due process the press conferences would not be conducted President, his political flacks and congressmen. This has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with the CinC putting his thumb down and pushing.
What do you think the chances of any of these execs not getting audited real soon.

[Gawain 0]

Everyone is up in arms over this, and I can't believe it.

Do some research people.

AIG, if allowed to fail, would be able able renegotiate its contracts. But no, the government and everyone said, "They can't fail." So, the taxpayers own 80% of AIG.

So, we gave them $170B with no strings, installed a government appointed CEO and now everyone is pissed about a contractual obligations (kind of the benchmark of an insurance company) that account for approximately 0.25% of the federal bailout money they've received.

No one seems to be howling about the $100+ billion they doled out to the banks, VIA AIG:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/AIG-details-105-billion-payouts/story.aspx?guid={74DD6FC0-D2D8-4925-8B84-F8E4BEBEEADB}

$100B+ ...

Counter party payouts...bailout by proxy...to banks...many of whom are also now owned by the Government...

When will you people realize that it is the government that is riding this horse into the ground.

Meanwhile, AG Cuomo in New York, non-thinker is trying to block the bonuses, depriving New York of tax revenue on payouts/salaries of $450M...smooth move ex-lax...

I hope he gets his way...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[downwardspiral 0]

I don't see what the big deal is. $163 million out of $175 billion is chump change. It's less than 1%. The earmarks for the stimulus was 2% of $750 Billion and Obama doesn't think it was a big deal. Why should this be?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[wmw999 2,148]

We have such a veneration for bigger/richer in the US that we're perfectly willing to let institutions get so big that we "can't" let them fail. And yes, the repercussions are very serious for letting AIG fail, and probably unacceptable -- at least according to people who have invested FAR more than me in studying this. Very few people who are really knowledgeable about finance are in favor of letting the biggies go under. Maybe, just maybe, pissed off though I might be, they know something I don't.

But maybe the lesson is not to encourage such huge growth and companies. In the early 1900's there were massive companies that McKinley & Roosevelt broke apart. There were differences between then and now, but the concept of having a company large enough to drive the market isn't all that different.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

I don't want to simply see AIG execs give their bailout money back. I want to see Americans who are on a bailout plan(AFDC) and have another child or children pay their bailout money back, as well.

nice whistling there

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

I don't see what the big deal is. $163 million out of $175 billion is chump change. It's less than 1%. The earmarks for the stimulus was 2% of $750 Billion and Obama doesn't think it was a big deal. Why should this be?

Maybe because the rewards are going to the very people who fucked the system over so badly in the first place. It's like giving medals for armed robbery.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Everyone is up in arms over this, and I can't believe it.

Do some research people.

AIG, if allowed to fail, would be able able renegotiate its contracts. But no, the government and everyone said, "They can't fail." So, the taxpayers own 80% of AIG.

So, we gave them $170B with no strings, installed a government appointed CEO and now everyone is pissed about a contractual obligations (kind of the benchmark of an insurance company) that account for approximately 0.25% of the federal bailout money they've received.

No one seems to be howling about the $100+ billion they doled out to the banks, VIA AIG:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/AIG-details-105-billion-payouts/story.aspx?guid={74DD6FC0-D2D8-4925-8B84-F8E4BEBEEADB}

$100B+ ...

Counter party payouts...bailout by proxy...to banks...many of whom are also now owned by the Government...

When will you people realize that it is the government that is riding this horse into the ground.

Meanwhile, AG Cuomo in New York, non-thinker is trying to block the bonuses, depriving New York of tax revenue on payouts/salaries of $450M...smooth move ex-lax...

I hope he gets his way...

Well, in Sept. 2008 the govt. was under the watchful eye of George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary, Paulson. I'm sure you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Well, in Sept. 2008 the govt. was under the watchful eye of George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary, Paulson. I'm sure you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

And if you knew anything, you would know that I have been against they bail-outs, in their entirety, since inception.

Despite that, people are getting bent over nothing in the scheme of what the government has created (pre-dating President Bush), and what the current administration is perpetuating.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

Well, in Sept. 2008 the govt. was under the watchful eye of George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary, Paulson. I'm sure you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

And if you knew anything, you would know that I have been against they bail-outs, in their entirety, since inception.

Despite that, people are getting bent over nothing in the scheme of what the government has created (pre-dating President Bush), and what the current administration is perpetuating.

Any gov't is FUBAR Unless they control all information. Then they will meet their goal of 100 %excecution with negative indicators.

Just because some people think the AIG CF is no big deal that opinion is insignificant to the people that don't agree.

Thats why we have SC

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Hey, me, too. But then they wouldn't pay as much in taxes. It's their respomsibility to not be tax cheats and maximize the income taxes that they could be paying and live up to their social eresponsibilities.

Once again, members of Congress perusing this site have seized another of my thoughts. I was being sarcastic, and yet Congress says, "That lawrocket is a smart fucking guy. Let's tax the money - all of it, and get it all back."

Congress looking at huge taxes on AIG bonuses

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090317/aig_outrage.html

Quote

In the House, Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, introduced a bill that would that would tax at 100 percent bonuses above $100,000 paid by companies that have received federal bailout money.

Of course, I don't see why Congress didn't just block the payments. The only thing Congress does better than give out money is tax it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[piper17 1]

...and didn't Senator Chris Dodd (D. CT) write an amendment into the bailout package that included a provision that exempted bonuses from controls on executive compensation?!

Just came across the following:

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG: 0.9768, 0.1967, 25.21%) bonus recipients so the government could recoup the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.

While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

Also, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

In the House, Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, introduced a bill that would that would tax at 100 percent bonuses above $100,000 paid by companies that have received federal bailout money.

Of course, I don't see why Congress didn't just block the payments. The only thing Congress does better than give out money is tax it.

sounds like more window dressing (like Obama's pledge to block it) - I don't think you can impose taxes after the fact, so it would only apply to future bonuses.

[ryoder 1,398]

Quote

In the House, Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., and Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, introduced a bill that would that would tax at 100 percent bonuses above $100,000 paid by companies that have received federal bailout money.

I got a chuckle out of this article today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090317/pl_politico/20078

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[SkyDekker 1,144]

Quote

Employment contracts really aren't that complicated. If their's includes bonuses for sales or profit levels, it's rather straightforward.

Employment contracts can easily be renogotiated. Just look at GM, Ford and Chrysler.

I don't understand how some of the posters on here can get very upset about auto workers making too much money and demanding they break their current employment contract and make concessions, yet are fine with millions in bonus money being handed out, because it was in the contract. Specially since the bonusses are going to exactly that group that completely crippled AIG and put it in the situation it is in.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401394.html

Bonuses? Hanging would be more appropriate.

In the financial industry "bonuses" often represent a fundamental part of the compensation package and are not considered a luxury or frivolous. Overall success of the employer is only one component in determining the amount of the bonus.

If you propose that bonuses not be paid to executives in the same year that their companies fail, would you also propose that physicians not be paid if their patients' die within a year of treatment?

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Employment contracts really aren't that complicated. If their's includes bonuses for sales or profit levels, it's rather straightforward.

Employment contracts can easily be renogotiated. Just look at GM, Ford and Chrysler.

Future contracts can be renegotiated. No shit. The conversation here is about taking back money already awarded and paid to people. It's not remotely the same. If your company wants to change terms and is permitted to (say an at will state like California), you either accept the new terms or you look for another job. But any money/bonuses paid to you in the past are your's. You may have spent the money, you at the least made financial decisions based having this money.

Quote

Specially since the bonusses are going to exactly that group that completely crippled AIG and put it in the situation it is in.

Has anyone actually substantiated this sentiment? With all the populist propaganda of late, I can't assume that this is anything more than outrage that someone at AIG got a bonus. Unfortunately, as typical this year, it's hard to get quality reporting. I do see a lot of articles to suggest that all of the proposals are merely window dressing for the idiots who believe this means something is being done about AIG.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

This disregard for the rule of contract law by the Dems is very similar to the Republicans disrgard for Habeas Corpus laws after 9-11. "Ya, but these guys are assholes. They deserve it." is not an excuse.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

This disregard for the rule of contract law by the Dems is very similar to the Republicans disrgard for Habeas Corpus laws after 9-11. "Ya, but these guys are assholes. They deserve it." is not an excuse.

Um - I'm afraid that it is a different thing. It's not called "salary." It is called "bonus." Contract has such thing as what is called, "efficient breach."

Let the people who were to receive these bonuses sue for damages. Then prove how their "bonuses" were to be measured - which is usually based upon the financial integrity of the company.

I kinda double dog dare them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[TheAnvil 0]

Wouldn't that be ex post facto, Counsel?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

Then prove how their "bonuses" were to be measured - which is usually based upon the financial integrity of the company.

Not necessarily. Sometimes bonuses--especially for the kind of highly compensated people who are attracting controversy--are paid on a deferred basis with the bonus for a particular year being paid in pieces over the next three years or so. The only condition for the later payments is continued employment with the company--the purpose of this is to create "golden handcuffs" to tie the employee to the firm.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This disregard for the rule of contract law by the Dems is very similar to the Republicans disrgard for Habeas Corpus laws after 9-11. "Ya, but these guys are assholes. They deserve it." is not an excuse.

I think most of the time Obama is just speaking to the masses, knowing that his proposals aren't actually going to result in a thing wrt these bonuses, but it still looks good.

Almost feel like I should go blow my bonus on hookers and booze before someone tries to claim it. Fortunately my company is one of the few without any bailout money. So screw you all!

[firstime 0]

those boners were written into the stimulus bill from the get go, did any of the democreeps read it or did our president read it in it's entirety, educate yourself

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I don't see what the big deal is. $163 million out of $175 billion is chump change. It's less than 1%.

.1%, is in one-tenth percent.

Quote

The earmarks for the stimulus was 2% of $750 Billion and Obama doesn't think it was a big deal. Why should this be?

Because it shows that Obama is aligned with "Main Street" Americans who are unhappy with the way the fat cats are being compensated without threatening the way Washington runs (bills bloat to hundreds or thousands of pages before there's enough them for everyone to vote 'yea').