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 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.]
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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?
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?
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.
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:
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?
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
