Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: lone_gunman on March 21, 2009, 10:15:33 AM
-
I am not sure I understand why the Republican party would become the champion of giving failed AIG execs bonuses with taxpayer money. This is going to be very politically unpopular for them. The bailouts are already politically unpopular, and then to decide to defend bonuses to failed execs is going to make people irate. I don't think we have to worry about the Republicans making a come back anytime soon.
It does not really matter to me if AIG was contractually obligated to pay these bonuses. I would support either reducing the bailout by the bonus amount, or taxing failed executives salaries at a higher rate. Seems to me all we are doing is rewarding incompetence.
-
I am not sure I understand why the Republican party would become the champion of giving failed AIG execs bonuses with taxpayer money. This is going to be very politically unpopular for them. The bailouts are already politically unpopular, and then to decide to defend bonuses to failed execs is going to make people irate. I don't think we have to worry about the Republicans making a come back anytime soon.
It does not really matter to me if AIG was contractually obligated to pay these bonuses. I would support either reducing the bailout by the bonus amount, or taxing failed executives salaries at a higher rate. Seems to me all we are doing is rewarding incompetence.
First, if AIG was contractually obligated to pay these bonuses, it would cost more NOT to pay them. Add the court costs in.
Second, AIG is not the only company to do this. Fannie and Freddie did the same, as did others.
Third, to we really want the government singling out individuals for "political expedience" reasons?
Fourth, AIG is a very large group of companies, some of which were doing well. Should their contracts be broken even though they met all criteria for this bonus?
And last, we already reward failed executives as a matter of course. It's called government pensions, and legislators get them. We're still providing security for a few failed presidents also, I believe.
I'm more concerned by the amount of money that went to foreign based companies (billions) than bonuses paid under a legal contract. Then again, when has a politician believed in keeping his word. That's what a contract is based on, after all.
-
Republicans doing things to be popular is what got the party in trouble in the first place.
Agreeing to all of the bailouts was a mistake. Agreeing to spending hundreds of billions was a mistake, and agreeing to spend trillions is insanity.
However, setting a precedent giving government the ability to cancel contracts, or to target individuals with confiscatory taxes, or to publish the names of certain persons who may be killed because of that exposure, is dangerous. It's a mob lynching mentality.
Some incompetent people at AIG are getting bonuses, and some competent people at AIG are now being targeted for 90% tax rates because they did their jobs.
If the Republicans cannot make the case that all of this is what happens when government starts to nationalize business, then the Republicans deserve whatever happens to them.
-
This is what happens when you have a "stimulus" bill that is 1500 pages long and no one was allowed to read it.
(Remember when Obama was running he promised that every bill would be posted on a web site for 5 days?)
No one read it and now the chickens are coming home to roost. If you are a Congressman or Senator and you voted for this piece of do-do
then you should be ashamed of yourselves, republican or democrat.
-
No one was "allowed" to read it?
Honorable men abstain.
The American people are hungry for some truth, however unpleasant, and will reward the honest. The "Republicans" believe in nothing except in being re-elected. The conservatives at least have some principles. Their problem is coping with unfavorable demographic trends and a hostile culture. I will refrain from repeating my views on where that leads.
-
They are using the republicans ethics against them. That is part of the trap this bailout was. A door for the republicans to champion contract law that cheats the tax payers.
-
Is the Republican party trying to kill itself???
What was your first clue?
The current regime is almost totally consumed with demagoguery, populist rhetoric, and empty promises. The vast majority of their positions are feel-good manure that appeals to those who refuse to look at the reality beneath the surface of dreamy promises. Any opposition to that will appear heartless, obstructionist or block-headed to those who buy into the scam pimped by the other side. In other words, we have to play the grown-ups. 'Course, it might have helped for us to exploit this by saying, "See? This is why we shouldn't have bailed them out in the first place. If the execs at AIG shouldn't be getting all this money, why was it given to them in the first place, in any form?"
On the other hand, these bonuses are a distraction and we may do well to pick our battles more judiciously in the future. I am not hopeful of any improvement on that score. Are you?
Thus:
I don't think we have to worry about the Republicans making a come back anytime soon.
It may be that common sense and liberty are no longer good enough for the American people, or even for the Republican Party. Or we may see the error of our ways.
-
The Republicans were offered an opportunity last fall to stand on principle. Their champion, Sen. McCain, blew it. That was the moment to denounce the bail-outs and re-assert basic values. Choices have consequences.
-
Durn skippy.
-
At the moment the Republics are tap dancing in the mine field. They've been lucky so far, but luck will only hold for so long before they eventually hit a live one. Then it's all she wrote from there.
-
How has the party been lucky, and what are you predicting will happen to her?
-
I heard a corporate tax attorney talking on a news channel about this. He said that the bonuses are a good idea, because if the company has a bad year, they don't have to pay bonuses, and if instead the money had been paid as salary they would be stuck paying it.
This didnt make sense to me for two reasons:
First, some are saying that AIG is contractually obligated to pay the bonuses. If that is the case, then this was not really a bonus at all, just regular salary. The fact that it is a bonus leads me to think that this money is optional, and until I see a contract that says otherwise, I am not sure I believe what AIG is sayin about contractual obligations. I have seen a lot of employment contracts, and bonuses are frequently included, but are discretionary, and depend on the performance of the employee and the financial condition of the company.
Second, AIG has certainly had a bad year, so if what the attorney was saying about not paying bonuses in a bad year is true, AIG really should not be paying these clowns anything.
Also, have you guys heard that Citibank is taking $10 million in bailout money to redo executive offices?
-
There was a report on the radio early Friday morning (0230 early, I was on my way into the office) that, if true, put much of this into context. Unfortunately, being 0230 I did not make note of who was making the report, but it did seem legitimate, not WND fodder. The person being interviewed sounded as though he had firm knowledge of what had transpired.
Supposedly, many of the AIG execs receiving the bonuses had been asked to stay on to conduct an orderly shut down of the AIG business units that had failed so badly. They were told their jobs were already forfeit, but that their expertise was needed to close things out properly. If they agreed to stay on, they would receive a bonus at the end just before being let go, if they were successful in cleaning up some of the mess.
According to the report, the execs that stayed on managed to mitigate approximately $1 trillion dollars of the financial damage to AIG. In other words, the bailout to AIG could have been much larger if these execs had failed at what they were asked to do.
If that report was true, then those execs deserve every penny of their bonuses.
I just wish it hadn't been so freaking early and off schedule for me that morning, then I would have remembered names, etc. It might have added a little weight to this post.
Edited for spelling.
-
I heard a corporate tax attorney talking on a news channel about this. He said that the bonuses are a good idea, because if the company has a bad year, they don't have to pay bonuses, and if instead the money had been paid as salary they would be stuck paying it.
This didnt make sense to me for two reasons:
First, some are saying that AIG is contractually obligated to pay the bonuses. If that is the case, then this was not really a bonus at all, just regular salary. The fact that it is a bonus leads me to think that this money is optional, and until I see a contract that says otherwise, I am not sure I believe what AIG is sayin about contractual obligations. I have seen a lot of employment contracts, and bonuses are frequently included, but are discretionary, and depend on the performance of the employee and the financial condition of the company.
Second, AIG has certainly had a bad year, so if what the attorney was saying about not paying bonuses in a bad year is true, AIG really should not be paying these clowns anything.
Also, have you guys heard that Citibank is taking $10 million in bailout money to redo executive offices?
My understanding is that they are retention bonuses. You never hear the retention part mentioned BTW. These bonuses are money paid to employees that are scheduled to be laid off so that they finish out their term instead of leaving ASAP. When exactly the deal to pay the bonuses was reached, when the employee was hired or when they were told they were being laid off, I don't know.
And on the Citibank offices, somebody would have to show me that these offices were suddenly scheduled for renovation after the bailouts were arranged, and not before then. Further, if you accept the premise of stimulus, then isn't that money going to be spent with local contractors and wouldn't that be a good thing?
-
At the moment the Republics are tap dancing in the mine field. They've been lucky so far, but luck will only hold for so long before they eventually hit a live one. Then it's all she wrote from there.
I still can't get over this. It sounds like a prophecy made after the fact. The Rep's WERE dancing in a mine field, and DID hit a number of live ones. It IS "all she wrote."
From here, there isn't much further to go down.
-
The R party is just about dead, how the heck did McCain get the nod?
I hate the tin foil hat I'm wearing when I feel it was fixed.
I think a lot of Conservatives just stayed home last fall.
-
And on the Citibank offices, somebody would have to show me that these offices were suddenly scheduled for renovation after the bailouts were arranged, and not before then. Further, if you accept the premise of stimulus, then isn't that money going to be spent with local contractors and wouldn't that be a good thing?
Whether the rennovations were scheduled before or after the bailout, the rennovations should have been cancelled when Citigroup started tanking and asked for bailout money. If you were planning on rennovating your home, but got laid off at work, would you still go ahead with the rennovation? I am guessing no.
I don't accept the premise of the stimulus, and don't think we should be spending money on local contractors for rennovations a bankrupt company does not need.
-
And on the Citibank offices, somebody would have to show me that these offices were suddenly scheduled for renovation after the bailouts were arranged, and not before then. Further, if you accept the premise of stimulus, then isn't that money going to be spent with local contractors and wouldn't that be a good thing?
Construction work is only stimulating when the government does it. It's badbadbad when anyone else tries to build something nice for themselves.
Nevermind that this construction work was probably already under contract when their troubles hit.
And I'd like to see evidence that the particular dollars Citi spent on the renovations came from the money FedGov gave them instead of out of their own revenue streams.
-
And I'd like to see evidence that the particular dollars Citi spent on the renovations came from the money FedGov gave them instead of out of their own revenue streams.
That statement is confusing to me, and kind of implies that if I take $50 from my right pocket, and move it to my left pocket, that I am $50 richer.
Whether it is government money or Citi money, it is still a $10 million dollar expense that they probably didnt need. I doubt the executive offices were worn out so completely that they had to be replaced at a time when Citi is almost bankrupt and going on the public dole.
If a person started drawing welfare benefits and then was discovered to have $10 million dollars hiding in a bank somewhere, you guys would freak out. But since it is a corporation you somehow think it is ok?
-
Having worked on a retention bonus I can assure you fed.gov will be sued bigtime if it bigfoots the contracts. The fact they were retention bonuses vs performance bonus is a big deal. Once again our illustrious mainstream media demonstrates why is it no longer worth of the protection of part of the first amendment.
-
That statement is confusing to me, and kind of implies that if I take $50 from my right pocket, and move it to my left pocket, that I am $50 richer.
Whether it is government money or Citi money, it is still a $10 million dollar expense that they probably didnt need. I doubt the executive offices were worn out so completely that they had to be replaced at a time when Citi is almost bankrupt and going on the public dole.
If a person started drawing welfare benefits and then was discovered to have $10 million dollars hiding in a bank somewhere, you guys would freak out. But since it is a corporation you somehow think it is ok?
If it's Citi's money being spent, then you have no right to criticize. And I know this'll blow your mind, but now that the bailout money has been signed over to Citi, all that money belongs to them, too, and can be used however they please. Unless there were any specific provisions in the deal restricting what Citi was to do with the money, they can use it however they like.
Don't like it? Tough cookies. Our right to control that money ended when we inked the deal with Citi.
Regardless, it's all a giant red herring. That $10 mil is a proverbial drop in the bucket. Citi has about $2 trillion in assets. That new office amounts to 0.0005% of what Citi holds. Citi could renovate dozens of offices that way without changing their situation materially.
-
FWIW:
My dad works for a small, privately held architectural woodworking company. Most of their business comes from making custom solid wood paneling, doors, moldings, conference tables, desks, etc for office buildings.
They have never been so busy, and have work scheduled from now until late 2011.
All of the products they make are of the super-luxury category.
Most of their customers right now are the same companies in the headlines of news stories like this.
-
I agree.
It's very much a red herring, and I'll bet that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are going to regret getting so involved when all is said and done.
-
Is the Republican party trying to kill itself???
The repukeagain party is so inept if it was trying to kill itself it would probably have won every seat in kongress in the last 2 elections and have a republican dictator in the oval office now ....... =D
-
Poorly expressed, but the sentiment is high-larious. 'Course that means they were at the height of their incompetence from '94 to '04.
-
If it's Citi's money being spent, then you have no right to criticize. And I know this'll blow your mind, but now that the bailout money has been signed over to Citi, all that money belongs to them, too, and can be used however they please. Unless there were any specific provisions in the deal restricting what Citi was to do with the money, they can use it however they like.
Don't like it? Tough cookies. Our right to control that money ended when we inked the deal with Citi.
Regardless, it's all a giant red herring. That $10 mil is a proverbial drop in the bucket. Citi has about $2 trillion in assets. That new office amounts to 0.0005% of what Citi holds. Citi could renovate dozens of offices that way without changing their situation materially.
I can't understand why people hold opinions like this. First off it's not Citi's money, ITS OURS. We gave it to them to rescue their company not for new rugs, and paintings. If I go to the bank and ask for a loan to open a buisness and then spend that money on new crap for my house isn't that fraud!? From my understanding Republicans hated the stimulus bill but sort of got brow beaten into signing it much like the PATRIOT Act, sign it or you unamerican well this time the line was sign it or you hate America and want to watch it go bankrupt. I cannot belive we actually gave billions of dollars to companies that epically failed with almost no over sight! The stimulus bill was riddled with holes and now that the American taxpayer found out, politicians are looking for everyway to cover their butts, which pisses me off that they didnt do this BEFORE the bill was signed but jezze they need to do something. I dont belive the retention bonuses where in the best interest of the Country, maybe the best intrest for the company (AIG) but not for the country. So let me get this strait in terms of analogy, I work for a day trading corporation, I make a bunch of bad trades and end up losing more than my entire companies worth, but dont worry here comes Mr. BigGov to dole out money to us because we are a critical part of the countries financial system. My boss comes to me and tells me I'll be fired in the next 6 months, but if I can make back some of the money I lost he will give me 1 Million of the BigGov money.
And everyone's alright with this?!? I think since the Gov basically owns AIG now, (which is basically communism. I guess you republicans were right about Obama wanting to turn us into a Communist state, but guess what he couldn't have done it without your blessing!) part of the bill should have included that the Gov has retained the ability to renegotiate these retention bonuses. To the average american it just looks like these Execs are looting a sinking ship that the taxpayers are trying to save. I wonder what your feelings are over the 50k hunting trip AIG execs took, They worked hard so they deserve a company vacation paid for by American taxpayers. EDIT: After some digging apparently they have wasted over 526k of tax payer money.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27201970/
Regarding $10mil as a "drop in the bucket" that is part of the irresponcible thinking that got us into that mess. Why dont you tell a homeless shelter, a charity, or a gov program that got its funding cut because of this bill that $10mil is nothing, im sure they would disagree with you. Or wait maybe the homeless people dont deserve it because they didnt earn it! The Citi bosses are rich so they deserve the best on the backs of Americans I guess. . . :|
-
I can't understand why people hold opinions like this. First off it's not Citi's money, ITS OURS. We gave it to them to rescue their company not for new rugs, and paintings. If I go to the bank and ask for a loan to open a buisness and then spend that money on new crap for my house isn't that fraud!? From my understanding Republicans hated the stimulus bill but sort of got brow beaten into signing it much like the PATRIOT Act, sign it or you unamerican well this time the line was sign it or you hate America and want to watch it go bankrupt. I cannot belive we actually gave billions of dollars to companies that epically failed with almost no over sight! The stimulus bill was riddled with holes and now that the American taxpayer found out, politicians are looking for everyway to cover their butts, which pisses me off that they didnt do this BEFORE the bill was signed but jezze they need to do something. I dont belive the retention bonuses where in the best interest of the Country, maybe the best intrest for the company (AIG) but not for the country. So let me get this strait in terms of analogy, I work for a day trading corporation, I make a bunch of bad trades and end up losing more than my entire companies worth, but dont worry here comes Mr. BigGov to dole out money to us because we are a critical part of the countries financial system. My boss comes to me and tells me I'll be fired in the next 6 months, but if I can make back some of the money I lost he will give me 1 Million of the BigGov money.
And everyone's alright with this?!? I think since the Gov basically owns AIG now, (which is basically communism. I guess you republicans were right about Obama wanting to turn us into a Communist state, but guess what he couldn't have done it without your blessing!) part of the bill should have included that the Gov has retained the ability to renegotiate these retention bonuses. To the average american it just looks like these Execs are looting a sinking ship that the taxpayers are trying to save. I wonder what your feelings are over the 50k hunting trip AIG execs took, They worked hard so they deserve a company vacation paid for by American taxpayers. EDIT: After some digging apparently they have wasted over 526k of tax payer money.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27201970/
Regarding $10mil as a "drop in the bucket" that is part of the irresponcible thinking that got us into that mess. Why dont you tell a homeless shelter, a charity, or a gov program that got its funding cut because of this bill that $10mil is nothing, im sure they would disagree with you. Or wait maybe the homeless people dont deserve it because they didnt earn it! The Citi bosses are rich so they deserve the best on the backs of Americans I guess. . . :|
Funny thing about the way mortgages work. If you CONTRACT with the bank for a mortgage, you are required to fulfill the obligations of that contract.
The bank doesn't get to come back later and say "Woops, we screwed up, you can't use this money for a house with a pool, we never thought you'd be that frivilous" if the contract didn't say it in the first place!
You don't like how AIG is spending the money? You should have done something about it before we handed it over "no questions asked".
After that point, we can't go back and break the contract.
Well, I guess we can because apparently we don't care about the rule of law anymore.
-
You don't like how AIG is spending the money? You should have done something about it before we handed it over "no questions asked".
After that point, we can't go back and break the contract.
Well, I guess we can because apparently we don't care about the rule of law anymore.
Since you failed the reading portion of this exercise, lets try again.
The stimulus bill was riddled with holes and now that the American taxpayer found out, politicians are looking for everyway to cover their butts, which pisses me off that they didnt do this BEFORE the bill was signed but jezze they need to do something.
Care to comment on anything esle?
-
Also, have you guys heard that Citibank is taking $10 million in bailout money to redo executive offices?
Today
Me "Hey man I need to bum $100. I might be able to pay you back. I'm pretty broke right now."
You "Sure......"
Tomorrow
You "Hey, what did you spend that money on?"
Me "Well, $50 went towards paying bills. The rest? Beer and hookers...."
The idiots in office have only themselves to blame. No strings attached, what on earth did they think they were going to do with the money?
-
Since you failed the reading portion of this exercise, lets try again.
Care to comment on anything esle?
Since you failed at your own expression:
I can't understand why people hold opinions like this. First off it's not Citi's money, ITS OURS. We gave it to them to rescue their company not for new rugs, and paintings. If I go to the bank and ask for a loan to open a buisness and then spend that money on new crap for my house isn't that fraud!?
Hate to tell you, it's not your money anymore since someone took it from you and gave it to Citi.
You may go on later to decry government but you started out yelling at someone who pointed out it was too late.
If you don't like that I criticized your first argument, maybe you shouldn't have made that one?
-
LoL So you wouldnt be able to support your first criticism after I responded so you move to something esle. Good for you for being able to defend your viewpoint. :rolleyes:
Hate to tell you, it's not your money anymore since someone took it from you and gave it to Citi.
You may go on later to decry government but you started out yelling at someone who pointed out it was too late.
If you don't like that I criticized your first argument, maybe you shouldn't have made that one?
First off, Its not to late. Its to late when you have an defeatist attitude such as yours. I hope with added public pressure and outrage some politicians will wake up a realize they need to watchout for the people that elected them, and not allow more outragous bills such as this one to pass. If you think its too late then your just part of the problem, oh "Oh well the gov did it nothing we can do. . . ho hum"
When more people actually start writing letters to their congress critters maybe they wont sign off on these spend us into oblivion bills.
I dont mind criticism, but pointless drive by criticism without an argument is pointless. Especially when you criticise a point that I already addressed.
Makattack
You should have done something about it before we handed it over "no questions asked".
Seenterman in the post directly before that
I cannot belive we actually gave billions of dollars to companies that epically failed with almost no over sight! The stimulus bill was riddled with holes and now that the American taxpayer found out, politicians are looking for everyway to cover their butts, which pisses me off that they didnt do this BEFORE the bill was signed but jezze they need to do something.
Construct your criticism in a better fashion in a way you can argue and defend your point, and try reading the post before you criticize.
-
LoL So you wouldnt be able to support your first criticism after I responded so you move to something esle. Good for you for being able to defend your viewpoint. :rolleyes:
First off, Its not to late. Its to late when you have an defeatist attitude such as yours. I hope with added public pressure and outrage some politicians will wake up a realize they need to watchout for the people that elected them, and not allow more outragous bills such as this one to pass. If you think its too late then your just part of the problem, oh "Oh well the gov did it nothing we can do. . . ho hum"
When more people actually start writing letters to their congress critters maybe they wont sign off on these spend us into oblivion bills.
I dont mind criticism, but pointless drive by criticism without an argument is pointless. Especially when you criticise a point that I already addressed.
Construct your criticism in a better fashion in a way you can argue and defend your point, and try reading the post before you criticize.
Seems to me you are still calling for the government to take punitive action against a company and/or individuals AFTER they gave them the bailout cash.
You want to change the rules of the game AFTER other people have started playing.
If this is not your position, please clarify. Otherwise, I do not see how your later argument that we need to prevent this in the future mitigates a call to penalize private individuals/companies because of government malfeasance.
-
Well, this thread fails the civility test, big time...