That's what should happen to these AIG guys. The bonuses and 2/3rds of the bailout money going to their trading partners. This is getting outrageous. Paulson should probably have his head lopped off too for not getting some boundaries for these guys. Do we have any recourse as a tax payer??????

(03-15-2009 11:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's what should happen to these AIG guys. The bonuses and 2/3rds of the bailout money going to their trading partners. This is getting outrageous. Paulson should probably have his head lopped off too for not getting some boundaries for these guys. Do we have any recourse as a tax payer??????

Yes we do.
Let them go bankrupt, which is what we should have done in the first place.

(03-15-2009 11:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  That's what should happen to these AIG guys.

Sure, let terrorists go free, but execute thieves.

Ever the thinker...

I heard that the AIG lawyers said the bonuses were "guaranteed" by contract.

I wish I could get my bonus guaranteed. At my company, apparently the bonuses are dependent on how well the company performs.

Who'd a thunk? Must be another example of the man keeping me down.

More and more AIG is sounding like another Enron.

Maybe if the Feds go ahead and buy it all out then they can open up the books and see where everything went.

(03-16-2009 08:50 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I heard that the AIG lawyers said the bonuses were "guaranteed" by contract.

I heard that there were some profitable divisions at AIG and it was the people in those divisions that got the bonuses. But using borrowed money for bonuses is irresponsible.

We never should have given them bailout money and if they have enough for bonuses then they should have started paying you, me and the rest of the country back.

Throw them to the wolves of competition.

If they need bailed out they shouldn't be giving bonuses. To me that's just common sense, but I find common sense something in short supply anymore.

(03-16-2009 10:36 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 08:50 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I heard that the AIG lawyers said the bonuses were "guaranteed" by contract.

I heard that there were some profitable divisions at AIG and it was the people in those divisions that got the bonuses. But using borrowed money for bonuses is irresponsible.

I see both sides to that situation. Surely the good people who kept making a profit for AIG should be rewarded for their work.

Torch,

I took you off my ignore list because I wanted to view the thread on creationism. I see Wildebeest handed your ass back to you but you keep plugging along.

Quote:Sure, let terrorists go free, but execute thieves.

Ever the thinker...

This quote I have to rebut because you won't find a thread where I say let terrorists go free. Your a fool. Here's a poem little pathetic man.

NEVER ARGUE WITH A FOOL


It is best not to argue,
But if you do at all,
Never do so with a fool.
A fool can defeat all.

He does not care for the facts.
He does not know debate.
He’s a stranger to reason.
Logic he can negate.

In the end the fool will win,
His logic is so strong!
Decides what he does not like
And then it must be wrong!

It’s better to keep quiet
When challenged by a fool.
Else, to prove his own wisdom,
He will make you a tool.

It is hence my policy
To not respond to those
Who ask questions not to learn
But to be bellicose.


Your going back on ignore........................

(03-16-2009 01:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Torch,

I took you off my ignore list because

Mach,
No one cares.

(03-16-2009 12:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If they need bailed out they shouldn't be giving bonuses. To me that's just common sense, but I find common sense something in short supply anymore.

If I'm an employee and I have a contract that says I'm entitled to a bonus and nothing has come along to change that contract and I don't get my bonus--you can bet I sue. And you can bet I win.

That's the problem. One more element of TARP that was misconceived was that the companies weren't required to forego bonuses in exchange for accepting TARP funds. Could have been worded to provide that any employee who took a bonus would be terminated immediately, or somesuch wording to get by the legal requirements (that works if contracts are at-will, might need something different in other cases).

(03-16-2009 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 12:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If they need bailed out they shouldn't be giving bonuses. To me that's just common sense, but I find common sense something in short supply anymore.

If I'm an employee and I have a contract that says I'm entitled to a bonus and nothing has come along to change that contract and I don't get my bonus--you can bet I sue. And you can bet I win.

Hey, I fully agree in the sanctity of contract.

But if you're from AIG and want to sue to recover a bonus, you'd better hope that's not a jury trail!

No jury would find in your favor, not right now.

(03-16-2009 03:49 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-16-2009 12:44 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  If they need bailed out they shouldn't be giving bonuses. To me that's just common sense, but I find common sense something in short supply anymore.

If I'm an employee and I have a contract that says I'm entitled to a bonus and nothing has come along to change that contract and I don't get my bonus--you can bet I sue. And you can bet I win.

Hey, I fully agree in the sanctity of contract.
But if you're from AIG and want to sue to recover a bonus, you'd better hope that's not a jury trail!
No jury would find in your favor, not right now.

It probably wouldn't be a jury trial. And juries decide issues of fact, not issues of law. There wouldn't be much dispute about any facts. You might get an activist judge who decided to rewrite your contract, but he'd be likely to get overturned on appeal. Particularly if you were in one of the other divisions that had performed acceptably.

Do you remember the republican congressional delegation that came up with an alternative to TARP? Do you remember what its provisions were? Do you remember that one of them was that if you took part in the program (which was basically insuring bad loans, thus solidifying the resulting derivative instruments) you had to forego bonuses? Do you remember John McCain ignoring that proposal to back Shrub's TARP approach?

The whole thing is clusterfcked. There is absolutely no diffference in my mind with the AIG contracts and the UAW. They had contracts too and they were renegotiated out of common sense. ( Job Banks.. concessions on retirees etc. etc.) There is no way in hell people at AIG should be getting 6 figure bonuses. We shall see where the numbers lie but it was something like 150 million in bonuses. I'm pretty sure that is what I read.

See this is what happens when you start this ****. They take advantage of it. And now that we've done one, we will keep giving bailouts, and they will keep taking advantage. Lets those A-HOLES go bankrupt.

Chuck Grassley thinks they should just go and commit suicide. Ok

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29733519/

I thought of this thread when I heard that soundbite on the news today.

(03-16-2009 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I'm an employee and I have a contract that says I'm entitled to a bonus and nothing has come along to change that contract and I don't get my bonus--you can bet I sue. And you can bet I win.

1. If AIG filed for bankruptcy protection all contracts are out the window.

2. Just because liberals think mortgage contracts can be forcefully modified by the government doesn't mean all businesses follow that model. I'm not defending the bonuses but the government gave them the money to spend and they did. Didn't Obama himself say spending in and of itself is stimulus when stimulus money went to stupid pet projects?

3. Friggin liberals have no problem spending billions on crack heads and welfare bums that produce nothing and pay zero taxes, but they are insulted when a insanely small fraction of that amount is spent on rewarding productive people. Way to go libs, keep punishing the people who actually do something to earn a living.

You liberals out there need to STFU when it comes to spending.
If you libs want to scream and yell then you really should be hollering about Pelosi One and the costs associated with shuttling her from coast to coast - not to mention her carbon footprint.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/m...ary-travel