• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

AIG: Will We Lose "Our" Investment?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,935
141
106
Originally posted by: 43st
There was a story about the Apollo missions and this effect a couple months ago.. basically we couldn't get to the moon now if we tried, the people that designed all those custom machined parts and solutions are dead now. Not to mention that a lot of the parts were made by small mom and pop machine shops who don't exist anymore.
Rofl, you're kidding right? I'd love to see proof that we couldn't get to the moon, technology doesn't move backwards, especially when it comes to space exploration. Why couldn't we get to the moon when we're landing rovers onto Mars? The distance from the Earth to the Moon is 1/144th (.006%) of the distance Mars. Don't believe everything you read.

RE: AIG was screwed the moment they started sucking the government teet. In that sector you're not going to attract top talent without decent bonuses, yet AIG needs top talent to get themselves out of this clusterfck. It's a catch 22. Could lower paid execs get the job done? Maybe, but they have a better chance of becoming solvent with the best talent who know the system. They should have hammered out bonuses and what that will be capped at before giving them the bailout money. But of course this was all part of the plan to pilfer taxpayer money and now Obama has to clean up this mess.







 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,726
2
81
Bails outs = boneheaded move!

I think had the Government let them fail, which would have forced them into bankruptcy and made them restructure, which would have allowed then to toss those bonus contracts among other things the tax payer, the government, the economy, and AIG itself would be much better off today.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
Originally posted by: sciwizam
This might help.
Interesting stuff...

That is simply not what happened. What actually happened is the opposite. It was Dodd who did everything possible -- including writing and advocating for an amendment -- which would have applied the limitations on executive compensation to all bailout-receiving firms, including AIG, and applied it to all future bonus payments without regard to when those payments were promised. But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed. The exemption for already existing compensation agreements -- the exact provision that is now protecting the AIG bonus payments -- was inserted at the White House's insistence and over Dodd's objections. But now that a political scandal has erupted over these payments, the White House is trying to deflect blame from itself and heap it all on Chris Dodd by claiming that it was Dodd who was responsible for that exemption.
Wow, just wow. This doesn't bode well for Geithner, who is already suffering from a confidence problem with the American public. Frankly, I think Obama or even Geithner needs to step up, take responsibility and get this crap behind us. We don't need another administration that can't be straight with us or take responsibility when the F things up.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,917
173
106
Originally posted by: Robor
Why does anyone in upper management at AIG deserve bonuses when the company is a disaster? How many businesses in this condition would hand out bonuses? Oh wait, I forgot about the good ole boys network. I've been laid off twice in the past 5 years and each time the CEO's that tanked the company walked away with upper 6 and low 7 digit severance packages while the working folks got 1-2 weeks per year of service. Fucking bullshit.
How can they deserve bonuses?

AIG is a huge enterprise into all kinds of different business. Think of it as holding company with a 100 different (subsidiary) companies under it.

If you are a CEO/exec in one those lower tier companies and making good profit why shouldn't you get a bonus? The fact that some other 'AIG' subsidiary unrelated to you screwd up and lost pile money isn't your fault.

Fern
 

sciwizam

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2004
1,953
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Robor
Why does anyone in upper management at AIG deserve bonuses when the company is a disaster? How many businesses in this condition would hand out bonuses? Oh wait, I forgot about the good ole boys network. I've been laid off twice in the past 5 years and each time the CEO's that tanked the company walked away with upper 6 and low 7 digit severance packages while the working folks got 1-2 weeks per year of service. Fucking bullshit.
How can they deserve bonuses?

AIG is a huge enterprise into all kinds of different business. Think of it as holding company with a 100 different (subsidiary) companies under it.

If you are a CEO/exec in one those lower tier companies and making good profit why shouldn't you get a bonus? The fact that some other 'AIG' subsidiary unrelated to you screwd up and lost pile money isn't your fault.

Fern
Found the link from yesterday's hearing. The part where Liddy explains that the people responsible for the mess have been fired and are not receiving the bonus. He also talks about why they are getting paid now even after leaving the company for the work they did before leaving.

Text

Drag the slider to around 4hrs 22 mins and ends about 4hrs 29mins.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,917
173
106
Originally posted by: sciwizam
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Found the link from yesterday's hearing. The part where Liddy explains that the people responsible for the mess have been fired and are not receiving the bonus. He also talks about why they are getting paid now even after leaving the company for the work they did before leaving.

Text

Drag the slider to around 4hrs 22 mins and ends about 4hrs 29mins.
Thanks,

Something I noticed that may be of interest vis-a-vis the dicussion of the Constitutionality of this; the congressman questioning Liddy at about 4:16 claimed this was a criminal matter. If so, that may some impact of the Bills of Attainder of ex post facto provisions in teh Constitution (some have claimed those only apply in criminal matters).

Fern
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY