Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AIG Bonuses

Rate this topic


Mammon
 Share

  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. Should they get bonuses?

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      13
    • Don't Know
      1
    • Don't Care
      4
    • Maybe
      2


Recommended Posts

I made a poll just to keep track of things, and I'm curious. I personally think that they should receive the $170 million in bonuses because they are contractually obligated to receive those and although they played a part in this crises, it's not entirely their fault and they sill earned the money. Not only that, but it will give incentive to keep workers there who not only work at a place a lot of people hate, but also keeping them away from a hostile job market.

It's better for everyone to pay the bonuses.

So, I disagree with the administration's officially stated outrage on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The company ought to have been in bankruptcy, with none of its pre-bankruptcy contracts more or less sacrosanct than another, but with a judge deciding who gets what, based on law.

The fault lies squarely with the Bush administration for pretending AIG is not bankrupt; then, with the Obama administration for continuing the charade. [See here.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The company ought to have been in bankruptcy, with none of its pre-bankruptcy contracts more or less sacrosanct than another, but with a judge deciding who gets what, based on law.

The fault lies squarely with the Bush administration for pretending AIG is not bankrupt; then, with the Obama administration for continuing the charade. [See here.]

I agree entirely. In normal circumstances, they would be fully entitled to their bonuses - this is not a populist attack on "greedy bankers" - but this is not a normal situation, without government support the company would have gone bust and they would have got nothing (or as you point out, a judge would have determined the amount).

We have a worse situation in the UK - the government is propping up RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) investing over $20 billion ($28 billion at current exchange rates) and taking around 60% equity. The former Chairman (aged 50) who ran the bank into the ground, has taken early retirement worth £703,000 (almost $1,000,000) a year for the rest of his life. If the government had not intervened, his pension would have been worth about £20,000 ($28,000) a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AIG should be bankrupt, and those contracts should be automatically scrapped. But, as long as the government insists on bailing out AIG, they aren't bankrupt, so the empoyees are entitled to their contracts. A contract is a contract. Unless there's a clause that says government intervention renders the contracts null and void, I can't see a way out of 'em. I voted yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think it's highly ironic that the government would not let them alter the contracts when they were receiving money and now Obama and crew are criticizing them. I agree with everyone else though. Unless the contract is renegotiated or they enter bankruptcy it should stay the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A contract is a contract and the government having been stupid enough not to tel AIG how it could use the taxpayers money just seems to be par for the course.

Seems to me that much more thought was put into the quickest and easiest way to get the taxpayers money to these corporate failures that was ever put into what would happen to the money.

Ok, fess up which 6 said no and why? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/i...cks-aig---time/

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG: 0.95, 0.1699, 21.78%) bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of 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.

The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the senator.

While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd 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 now seeking to tax.

The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.

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

:lol::lol::lol: All I can do anymore is laugh like a crazy woman.

I wonder if these politicians have any idea how much most Americans hate them or how stupid we think they are? :confused:

Edited by K-Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much fault & blame to go around.

I do wonder why Obama is making such a fuss over $170,000,000 when the rest of the bailout money is measured in the billions. Everyone is getting a piece of Bailout Pie, so why is it such a crime for the executives to get some too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A contract is a contract and the government having been stupid enough not to tel AIG how it could use the taxpayers money just seems to be par for the course.

Seems to me that much more thought was put into the quickest and easiest way to get the taxpayers money to these corporate failures that was ever put into what would happen to the money.

Ok, fess up which 6 said no and why? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

I'll cop. I said no. Being that they are currently the recipients of a gov't bailout, no one should be getting any kind of performance-based bonus, especially not the folks who caused the mess. I understand that there may be contractual obligations, but if this were a proper bankruptcy (which it should have been anyway), the creditors ought to get first priority. Now the biggest creditor is the Feds, and they can pretty much make AIG do whatever they want. Honestly, I hope all these companies getting government bailouts are made as miserable as possible by excessive government control. That should teach them not to come sniveling for bailouts (and yes, I know bailouts were forced on some businesses and that was wrong, but a lot of these organizations were more than complicit with the government). These corporations should have to fully face the consequences of accepting public aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll cop. I said no. Being that they are currently the recipients of a gov't bailout, no one should be getting any kind of performance-based bonus, especially not the folks who caused the mess. I understand that there may be contractual obligations, but if this were a proper bankruptcy (which it should have been anyway), the creditors ought to get first priority. Now the biggest creditor is the Feds, and they can pretty much make AIG do whatever they want. Honestly, I hope all these companies getting government bailouts are made as miserable as possible by excessive government control. That should teach them not to come sniveling for bailouts (and yes, I know bailouts were forced on some businesses and that was wrong, but a lot of these organizations were more than complicit with the government). These corporations should have to fully face the consequences of accepting public aid.

I'm not terribly read up on this, but here's what I imagine is going on. There's a contract between two entities, AIG and Mr. X. There are two ways in which that contract can be thrown out:

1. AIG can simply go with your no, and stop paying that contract. At this point Mr. X's obvious next move is to sue, and show up with his contract as the first and only piece of evidence in court. It was your idea to not pay out the contract, so go ahead, act as AIG's lawyer from here on.

How would you convince the judge that Mr. X is not entitled to his pay? (I would imagine that the judge -or the superior court justices- would be asking for cause- something Mr. X did that's contrary to his contractual obligations. Or they'll be asking for a precedent- in which it was acceptable for an existing company to diregard a contract, for reasons not related to the employee's performance-and you will have no such precedent to quote. Or, if you're facing the Supreme Court, they'll be asking for an interpretation of the Constitution which would allow them to establish such a precedent)

So, on what basis does Mr. X deserve to have his contract nullified, as long as AIG is in business?

2. Or are you suggesting that the White House or Congress intervene and declare those contracts null and void? Under what authority? The Constitution certainly doesn't allow for that, not even with Obama spinning it. I read something about a special tax on AIG execs Sen. Dodd was pushing, along these lines, and I clicked away in disgust. They have no authority to target specific individuals with taxes, not even with the their own interpretations of the Constitution. The Supreme Court would have to kill that bill. It would be ridiculous not to, even by their standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poll is actually missing an answer: the government should not put any more money into any more private companies and then try telling them what to do. That's the moral and fundamental answer, and a "yes" or "no" that is not accompanied by that is a meaningless sideshow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could understand the government's anger if the contract to pay these bonuses was made after the bailout money was received. But in fact, these contracts were made before the government bailout. These employees are contractually obligated to receive these bonuses, regardless of whether the money comes from taxpayers or profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could understand the government's anger if the contract to pay these bonuses was made after the bailout money was received. But in fact, these contracts were made before the government bailout. These employees are contractually obligated to receive these bonuses, regardless of whether the money comes from taxpayers or profit.

I personally would have thought that the government would attach strings to their money.

All the government had to do was stipulate that the bailout money was not to go to pay bonuses of any kind as they were obviously not warranted. That would leave AIG to pay what it could (the same way they would if they had gone bankrupt) out of the money it had (or didn't have) on hand at the time of the bailout.

The people the public should be mad at are the ones giving out bucket loads of their taxes with no thought to where that money is going or how it is being spent.

There are some people now saying that this financial crisis could be over by early 2010, but every silver lining has a cloud... we'll be paying for it for long after that.

:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally would have thought that the government would attach strings to their money.

All the government had to do was stipulate that the bailout money was not to go to pay bonuses of any kind as they were obviously not warranted. That would leave AIG to pay what it could (the same way they would if they had gone bankrupt) out of the money it had (or didn't have) on hand at the time of the bailout.

The AIG bonuses were restricted in the original bailout bill. Senator Dodd added an amendment to the bill allowing the bonuses. Dodd got a mortgage from Countrywide, owned by Bank of America, who got bailout money through AIG.

---------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AIG bonuses were restricted in the original bailout bill. Senator Dodd added an amendment to the bill allowing the bonuses. Dodd got a mortgage from Countrywide, owned by Bank of America, who got bailout money through AIG.

And Countrywide packaged and sold its sub-prime trash into the secondary market through Fannie and Freddie, both of whom were supposed to be regulated by politicians like Dodd and Barney Frank. By the way, the number 2 man on the AIG political contribution list was none other than our current President, Barry Obama. These scumbag politicians are dirty to the core and they continue to lie and obfuscate regarding their involvement in our current financial mess. The real shame is that the American people choose to elect these rats time and time again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Countrywide packaged and sold its sub-prime trash into the secondary market through Fannie and Freddie, both of whom were supposed to be regulated by politicians like Dodd and Barney Frank. By the way, the number 2 man on the AIG political contribution list was none other than our current President, Barry Obama. These scumbag politicians are dirty to the core and they continue to lie and obfuscate regarding their involvement in our current financial mess. The real shame is that the American people choose to elect these rats time and time again.

No, the real shame is that there are no viable alternatives being offered for people to vote for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a poll just to keep track of things, and I'm curious. I personally think that they should receive the $170 million in bonuses because they are contractually obligated to receive those and although they played a part in this crises, it's not entirely their fault and they sill earned the money. Not only that, but it will give incentive to keep workers there who not only work at a place a lot of people hate, but also keeping them away from a hostile job market.

It's better for everyone to pay the bonuses.

So, I disagree with the administration's officially stated outrage on the issue.

The issue here is not wheter they sould get bonuses which are apparently more lik commissions but should the likes of Frank, Dodd and Maxin Waters. who were the cause of all of this and who are using this as a diversionary tatic to avoid swinging from the lamposts on a rope (for which I have the proof), should be allwed to get their wormy hands into the economy any more. These crooks need a corkscrew to put their pants on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poll is actually missing an answer: the government should not put any more money into any more private companies and then try telling them what to do. That's the moral and fundamental answer, and a "yes" or "no" that is not accompanied by that is a meaningless sideshow.

I don't think it's really necessary. Your comment above states no, because they should of been in bankruptcy. Well that's water under the bridge, and they are still there. Do you think they shouldn't be paid at all because they should in bankruptcy? Should hunt down all the employees and take all the food they bought since the bail out and put it all back on the shelves?

The DMV shouldn't exist, so should I just not ever get a license from them? Anti-drug laws shouldn't exist, so should I just go smoke weed in front a police station?

What's done is done. Focus on what exists. What good are principles if acting on them requires changing the past?

What's missing is a question. I asked because I heard "everyone in America is outraged about this" so I should of asked "Are you outraged by this?"

I'm not.

Edited by Mammon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could understand the government's anger if the contract to pay these bonuses was made after the bailout money was received. But in fact, these contracts were made before the government bailout.

All the government had to do was stipulate that the bailout money was not to go to pay bonuses of any kind as they were obviously not warranted.

Read the article in post #10. These bonuses were accounted for in the bail out package, but now that the public is outraged, the Dems are back pedaling as fast as they can.

Now here are some bad bonuses. :lol:

Edited by K-Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing what these AIG execs are going through - the lynching they called a "hearing", death threats, 1000% taxation threats - I say they should take that money and run to a small foreign country quickly. Glenn Beck said that the only think the politicians haven't screamed is "bring out the monster!" Frankly, I think he's right. This mob rule, this "outrage", is politicians pandering to the lowest common denominator in such a sickening way, they shrug their shoulders when Mr. Liddy talked about someone threatening to hang executives and their families with Piano Wire. I'm disgusted. If these executives are forced to give up their money in any way (operative word being forced), I'll start mailing money to them to compensate.

Few of the AIG executives played a large part in the company's tanking. If one who received a lot of money did, then I think that person should probably give back some of the money, but they should be paid first. Contract is only second to property in terms of sacredness. But even if these men did run the company in the ground, hundreds of executives have done this before. It's nothing new. Bad business decisions are being made. It's nothing to tell someone to commit suicide over. (One of the politicians said that AIG executives should jump out windows. It's a sad world where a politician can get away with basically telling someone "STFU and kill yourself" without being tarred and feathered.)

Oh, and did I mention how the government is now an extortionist (not that this should come to news as anyone)? Neil Cavuto was talking to a senator on his show today, and mentioned the death threats. The senator said that all the executives had to do was give back the money and they would go away. If I understand this right, we're saying, give back your contractually earned money or we'll set the lynch mob on you and your family?

I say all white collar guys, and all white collar supporters, should march on washington and send these SOBs to North Korea, where they belong.

Edited by Devils_Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poll is actually missing an answer: the government should not put any more money into any more private companies and then try telling them what to do. That's the moral and fundamental answer, and a "yes" or "no" that is not accompanied by that is a meaningless sideshow.

This is the "right answer," of course. But I voted "no" on the reasoning that if AIG had properly been allowed to go bankrupt, those bonuses probably would not have been given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...