TPS Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Wall Street Bonuses are even really bonuses. A large portion of these people get 75% of their salary from "bonuses". Are we advocating not paying employees now? No. People are advocating not using taxpayer bailout money to pay bonuses. The auto workers were asked to renegotiate contracts, why not those who actually lost the money? Sorry, when they took the money, all bets and contracts were off. Despite that whore Dodd allowing it in the agreement. When someone takes $100,000 in contributions from a firm like AIG, he has no business being in the negotiation. It's also been nice for the likes of GSachs to get paid in full from taxpayer money too as a counterparty to AIG. There is no risk when you are connected. Nice work Hank! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 It's also been nice for the likes of GSachs to get paid in full from taxpayer money too as a counterparty to AIG. There is no risk when you are connected. Nice work Hank! AIG couldn't afford to meet obligations. The government bailed them out. Thus, they were able to meet their obligations. Those obligations being things like "Honor your agreement with Goldman Sachs and give them the money you agreed to give them." How the hell is that NOT understood? Outside of whether or not you agree with the bailout itself, there's nothing scandalous about it. AIG did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do with the capital it received from the government. Oh yeah, that's right...it's okay to go back on contracts in this case. The government wants to give AIG capital, but under no circumstances should it use that capital to honor a contractual commitment, be it bonuses or counterparty agreements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 AIG couldn't afford to meet obligations. The government bailed them out. Thus, they were able to meet their obligations. Those obligations being things like "Honor your agreement with Goldman Sachs and give them the money you agreed to give them." How the hell is that NOT understood? Outside of whether or not you agree with the bailout itself, there's nothing scandalous about it. AIG did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do with the capital it received from the government. Oh yeah, that's right...it's okay to go back on contracts in this case. The government wants to give AIG capital, but under no circumstances should it use that capital to honor a contractual commitment, be it bonuses or counterparty agreements. The government, meaning Paulson and a few democrats and republicans crafted a plan to save their buddies; not once, but three times. "The government" decided to make all of AIG parties whole, while countless other investors have taken losses. Why? Because it's a corrupt system, but there is honor among theives. Besides, contracts are renegotiated all the time. With enough public pressure, I am sure those 73 guys at AIG financial will find it in their hearts to accept a renegotiation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I just don't like the precident here. Now I don't agree with the bonuses but when the government can make a decision whether or not a bonus has been earned and if they determine that the person who recieved the bonus didn't earn it they have the right to tax the bejesus out of it just scares the hell out of me. I just don't like the PRESIDENT here... way to appoint a corrupt member of the fed reserve into the cabinet...and kudos for all of you that actually believed the "Change" slogan...just a bunch of sheep lining up for the slaughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manateefan Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Who are they kidding....who the !@#$ ARE THEY KIDDING????!!!!!!????? http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/aig...uses/index.html And then theres this..... http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/be...payouts-we.html And here is the cherry on the !@#$ing sundae... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html On edit...PLEASE dont puke up some bull sh-- that Im just "attacking democrats." Im not. And if you cant figure out that is not what this post is about, you have a few windows waiting for you to lick. Bonuses should have been out of the question with bail-out money. I haven't had a raise in 2 years because I work for a local government, I work for a department that has been desicrated (lost half of the employees) and vilified (for being incompetent, slow and playing canasta, which haven't played in 40 years) and these idiots get raises!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Bonuses should have been out of the question with bail-out money. I haven't had a raise in 2 years because I work for a local government, I work for a department that has been desicrated (lost half of the employees) and vilified (for being incompetent, slow and playing canasta) and these idiots get raises!!!! "things will get worse before they get better"...unless you have pals that will turn a blind eye while you hand out money that those working hard earned...don't worry though, this will go to some senate hearing and fade away because the general public has an attention span of the normal work week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manateefan Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 "things will get worse before they get better"...unless you have pals that will turn a blind eye while you hand out money that those working hard earned...don't worry though, this will go to some senate hearing and fade away because the general public has an attention span of the normal work week I understand that the economy is bad right now and so I didn't get a raise. But it really gets me that people are getting bonuses with bail-out money. That was not the intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I understand that the economy is bad right now and so I didn't get a raise. But it really gets me that people are getting bonuses with bail-out money. That was not the intent. Oh I feel you...I was due for a bonus in the $XX,XXX range...guess thats a ludicrous expectation whereas bonuses in the millions make way more sense...bonuses paid in part by my taxes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I understand that the economy is bad right now and so I didn't get a raise. But it really gets me that people are getting bonuses with bail-out money. That was not the intent. Remember when everyone was yelling about how the stimulus bill was being rushed through for approval? Remember when people were yelling "How in the hell could you have read that document in a single night?" Any of this ringing a bell? Maybe, just maybe, they all should have taken the time to READ the bill before it was signed. Maybe they could have avoided the loopholes that allowed for this. But no. We were in crisis mode. Details didn't matter, and now the details are going to bite them in the ass for rushing through a bill without bothering to read it. And what's the answer? Simple: get the names of the people who received the bonuses and tax them 100% to get the money back. Gee, there's an idea that would work on a national level, come to think of it. Nothing up my sleeve. Nothing in my hat. But they'll hang Geithner, and as long as someone hangs, America will feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manateefan Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Oh I feel you...I was due for a bonus in the $XX,XXX range...guess thats a ludicrous expectation whereas bonuses in the millions make way more sense...bonuses paid in part by my taxes... I didn't even get cost of living. We don't get bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I didn't even get cost of living. We don't get bonuses. Trust me, we busted our asses and and I was probably away from home 80% of the year getting the company I work for going...and whats the reward...? A big "thanks for the tax dollars, sucker!" the beauty is that people still stick to party affiliation when they know damn good and well that these politicians could care less about their constituents. Been that way for years, but god forbid you ever bring in the possibility of a third party...because maybe they don't have the same rhetoric as the common politician Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 No. People are advocating not using taxpayer bailout money to pay bonuses. The auto workers were asked to renegotiate contracts, why not those who actually lost the money?Sorry, when they took the money, all bets and contracts were off. Despite that whore Dodd allowing it in the agreement. When someone takes $100,000 in contributions from a firm like AIG, he has no business being in the negotiation. It's also been nice for the likes of GSachs to get paid in full from taxpayer money too as a counterparty to AIG. There is no risk when you are connected. Nice work Hank! They aren't even real bonuses. They are not optional and are not tied to performance. Why don't we stop the auto workers from collecting their money? After all, their resistance to automated factories and excess compensation are a gigantic part as to why the car companies need our money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 They aren't even real bonuses. They are not optional and are not tied to performance. Why don't we stop the auto workers from collecting their money? After all, their resistance to automated factories and excess compensation are a gigantic part as to why the car companies need our money. What do the auto workers have to do with AIG? Late to this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 After watching this current cluster!@#$ unfold, the only thing i can think of is this... http://www.despair.com/government.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 No sh--. If they were so concerned about how the money needed to be spent, they should have been specific when handing it out, and put oversight in place. Taking it back after they so freely doled it out does nothing but but puts more power into their hands. Besides, the gov't did so well passing out the money the first time, why don't I think they'd do an equally great job taking the money back, and passing it out a second time? It's like giving an alcoholic a case of Jack Daniels and the keys to a car, and after they get drunk and kill somebody saying "you weren't supposed to drink and drive!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 18, 2009 Author Share Posted March 18, 2009 Ya know...with all this righteous indignation coming from those turds in DC, Im ROOTING HARD for that AIG CEO today. I hope he steps before Congress and calls those azzes on their bull sh-- so bad, he makes them all look worse than Frankie Pantangeli did. Congress.....only such a group of azzes can force you to root for the "bad guy." Unreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew in CA Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Ya know...with all this righteous indignation coming from those turds in DC, Im ROOTING HARD for that AIG CEO today. I hope he steps before Congress and calls those azzes on their bull sh-- so bad, he makes them all look worse than Frankie Pantangeli did. Congress.....only such a group of azzes can force you to root for the "bad guy." Unreal. "Godfadda? I don't know no Godfadda!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Jack Welch has some interesting things to say on this: http://www.cnbc.com/id/29740717/ Liddy is in an impossible position right now. He's the CEO, appointed by the current owner of the company, forced to implement policies and agreements forced on the company by the ownership, who is now being criticized for the performance of his corporate owners by the government - who happen to be the corporate owners!!! This might actually be the most retarded thing I've ever seen Congress do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 What do the auto workers have to do with AIG? Late to this conversation. People are mad that bailed-out companies are paying their employees, and im just wondering why there is no outrage about UAW workers still being paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 The government, meaning Paulson and a few democrats and republicans crafted a plan to save their buddies; not once, but three times. "The government" decided to make all of AIG parties whole, while countless other investors have taken losses. Why? Because it's a corrupt system, but there is honor among theives.Besides, contracts are renegotiated all the time. With enough public pressure, I am sure those 73 guys at AIG financial will find it in their hearts to accept a renegotiation... Perchance you could add more to the discussion if you understood the difference between "renegotiation" and "government fiat", hmmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts