Dems bouncing around ideas to "help" AIG w/their contractual obligations

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: nixium
I generally am not comfortable with the idea, but if the government has an 80% stake in the entity, then they should be able to make a special case for just this particular company. The thing that worries me is that the government is no white knight. Politicians are not heroes or saviors. What if they get this passed under the approval of an indignant public, but a Karl Rove type decides to misuse it down the line?

Ideally, the shareholders would control such excesses, but that system is broken, to say the least.

Yes, this can set a nasty precedent cant it?

Conservatives: "Lets just do nothing then! The Free Market will solve this!"

Retards:"Spout off pre-recorded and unrelated talking point"

I know, you really should stop spouting off pre-recorded and unrelated talking points.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Chris Dudd is a left wing hack just like Obama

While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly 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 seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

Typical liberalhe is outraged at the problem he created, ironically he gets more money from AIG than any other politician.

Hahaha the idiot spcifically pwned himself there.

btw do you have a link?

Link

This is nothing new Barrack Hussein Obama is so outraged that he only gave them $30 billion.

 

[GTaudiophile]

"In the USA, they taxed first the AIG corporate thieves at 90%, And I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t an AIG corporate thief;
And then they came for the rich who make over $500,000 per year, taxing them at 92%, And I didn?t speak up because I didn't have that income;
And then they came for the Republicans, taxing them at 95%, And I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a Republican;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time no one had the money to buy guns, revolt, throw a Boston tea party, etc."


Setting precedence can be a dangerous thing.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
"In the USA, they taxed first the AIG corporate thieves at 90%, And I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t an AIG corporate thief;
And then they came for the rich who make over $500,000 per year, taxing them at 92%, And I didn?t speak up because I didn't have that income;
And then they came for the Republicans, taxing them at 95%, And I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a Republican;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time no one had the money to buy guns, revolt, throw a Boston tea party, etc."


Setting precedence can be a dangerous thing.

Yeah, i'm sure they're going to start taxing random groups of people higher tax rates for no reason, nevermind that AIG practically stole our taxpayer dollars by holding a gun to our heads :roll:

 

[winnar111]

Tim Geithner figured out how to not pay his taxes. I'm sure AIG execs can too.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: her209
Not necessary. Just publish the names of said recipients and watch their careers implode (as it should have happened).

doubtful. There are plenty of insurers (who haven't had as a hard time as banks) that would gladly hire some of AIG's top folks.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Chris Dudd is a left wing hack just like Obama

While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly 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 seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

Typical liberalhe is outraged at the problem he created, ironically he gets more money from AIG than any other politician.

lmao.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Crimson
I think it would be funny as hell if Obama just decided to tax Red Dawn at 98%.

He wouldn't have too as if I was culpable of driving AIG into the ground I wouldn't have the chutzpa to take a bonus, especially if it was from the TARP money

Yes, but it is very difficult to accept blame for failure. Especially when your company is telling you "good job" and giving you bonuses. It's highly doubtful that any of them are going to turn down a bonus.

6 of them did.

 

[Modelworks]

I think we should handle this like the founding fathers would.
Tie them to a rail, cover them with tar and feathers and run them out of town.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
"In the USA, they taxed first the AIG corporate thieves at 90%, And I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t an AIG corporate thief;
And then they came for the rich who make over $500,000 per year, taxing them at 92%, And I didn?t speak up because I didn't have that income;
And then they came for the Republicans, taxing them at 95%, And I didn?t speak up because I wasn?t a Republican;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time no one had the money to buy guns, revolt, throw a Boston tea party, etc."


Setting precedence can be a dangerous thing.

Yeah, i'm sure they're going to start taxing random groups of people higher tax rates for no reason, nevermind that AIG practically stole our taxpayer dollars by holding a gun to our heads :roll:

They will raise taxes on whomever they see fit, AIG didn't steal our taxes dollars these dumb asses gave it to them with no string attached just like this $30 billion.

Don't forget this is the oversight that you voted for.

 

[HomerJS]

Can someone explain to me contractually obligated bonus?

Wouldn't that just be a salary? Aren't bonuses variable and amount based on performance?

If a contract reads you get a $200,000 bonus each year why not just increase the salary?

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Chris Dudd is a left wing hack just like Obama

While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly 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 seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

Typical liberalhe is outraged at the problem he created, ironically he gets more money from AIG than any other politician.

Hahaha the idiot spcifically pwned himself there.

btw do you have a link?

Found it

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I think we should handle this like the founding fathers would.
Tie them to a rail, cover them with tar and feathers and run them out of town.

I hope you are talking about our selected officials.

Keep in mind that the bonuses are less than 1/10 of 1%, how do you feel about the 10's of billions going overseas?

Theses dummies care about $160 million but don't care about the billions going overseas.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Can someone explain to me contractually obligated bonus?

Wouldn't that just be a salary? Aren't bonuses variable and amount based on performance?

If a contract reads you get a $200,000 bonus each year why not just increase the salary?

Salary is during the year.

Bonus comes at a specific time.

Keeps the perps in house waiting for their bonus.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Can someone explain to me contractually obligated bonus?

Wouldn't that just be a salary? Aren't bonuses variable and amount based on performance?

If a contract reads you get a $200,000 bonus each year why not just increase the salary?

Salary = you show up you get paid

bonus = you meet some goal, you get paid

That's an oversimplification, but it's basically true.

In this case, the bonus could have been for anything (being employed on a certain date, selling a certain amount, having costs below a certain level, etc), but since the criteria for the bonus was in writing, it constitutes a legally binding contract between the two parties. IF party A meets the requirement, party B (AIG) is legally bound to pay them the bonus. To not do so is breach of contract, exposing AIG (and your bailout dollars) to compensatory damages (the amount of the promised bonus) PLUS attorney's fees PLUS possible punitive damages.

IF the government is going to keep AIG afloat, it is cheaper to just pay the damn bonuses than it is to go to court (contrary to popular opinion here).

 

[Thump553]

Why is everyone taking AIG at their word (more particularly, the AIG executives) and assume that AIG is correct in AIG's assertion that the are contractually obligated to make the payments? While contract law is relatively simple there are lots of ways to weasel out of apparently binding contracts-especially if AIG actually wanted to, which I greatly doubt.

The problem area was a London office of AIG as well. I don't know that much about international law as it effects income tax law, but I'm guessing a lot of bonus recipients are British citizens.

sactoking: I'm guessing that these are retention bonuses, not performance bonuses. They may be entitled to them for not quitting during the year. Of course, a lot of these clowns should have been fired for cause a long time ago (which probably negates the bonus) IF AIG had a semi-competent management team (which they obviously do not).

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: sactoking

IF the government is going to keep AIG afloat, it is cheaper to just pay the damn bonuses than it is to go to court (contrary to popular opinion here).

And on a similar note I have a hard time accepting that our government is only being made aware of these contracts now.

Myabe they underestimated how much scrutiny the public/media will be applying to these insitutions now that they are getting so much public money.

I say keep the damn pressure on all of them including Obama's admin.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sciwizam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Chris Dudd is a left wing hack just like Obama

While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly 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 seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.

Typical liberalhe is outraged at the problem he created, ironically he gets more money from AIG than any other politician.

Hahaha the idiot spcifically pwned himself there.

btw do you have a link?

Found it

Doh! Gotta love the "outrage" over the contracted payments they helped keep in place.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.../ap_on_re_us/aig_cuomo


Paying people that no longer work for them, hmmm.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Can someone explain to me contractually obligated bonus?

Wouldn't that just be a salary? Aren't bonuses variable and amount based on performance?

If a contract reads you get a $200,000 bonus each year why not just increase the salary?

Salary = you show up you get paid

bonus = you meet some goal, you get paid

That's an oversimplification, but it's basically true.

In this case, the bonus could have been for anything (being employed on a certain date, selling a certain amount, having costs below a certain level, etc), but since the criteria for the bonus was in writing, it constitutes a legally binding contract between the two parties. IF party A meets the requirement, party B (AIG) is legally bound to pay them the bonus. To not do so is breach of contract, exposing AIG (and your bailout dollars) to compensatory damages (the amount of the promised bonus) PLUS attorney's fees PLUS possible punitive damages.

IF the government is going to keep AIG afloat, it is cheaper to just pay the damn bonuses than it is to go to court (contrary to popular opinion here).

It's cheaper to let them have their bonuses then tax almost all of it back to the american people

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.../ap_on_re_us/aig_cuomo

Paying people that no longer work for them, hmmm.

Only a bad thing when you''re part of UAW.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: WaTaGuMp
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.../ap_on_re_us/aig_cuomo

Paying people that no longer work for them, hmmm.

Only a bad thing when you''re part of UAW.

Heh, I would think if they are no longer employees wouldn't that void any contract to pay them? I mean AIG of course, UAW is a whole different world of ludicrous.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: sactoking

IF the government is going to keep AIG afloat, it is cheaper to just pay the damn bonuses than it is to go to court (contrary to popular opinion here).

And on a similar note I have a hard time accepting that our government is only being made aware of these contracts now.

Myabe they underestimated how much scrutiny the public/media will be applying to these insitutions now that they are getting so much public money.

I say keep the damn pressure on all of them including Obama's admin.

Congress has known about them since February. One has to wonder about the timing of this latest "outrage". Slumping polls? Trying to sell the budget? Hmmm.... lots of juicy ones to pick from.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: sactoking

IF the government is going to keep AIG afloat, it is cheaper to just pay the damn bonuses than it is to go to court (contrary to popular opinion here).

And on a similar note I have a hard time accepting that our government is only being made aware of these contracts now.

Myabe they underestimated how much scrutiny the public/media will be applying to these insitutions now that they are getting so much public money.

I say keep the damn pressure on all of them including Obama's admin.

Congress has known about them since February. One has to wonder about the timing of this latest "outrage". Slumping polls? Trying to sell the budget? Hmmm.... lots of juicy ones to pick from.

Conservatives: Lets help AIG execs steal more taxpayer money... this is purely political!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Thump553
Why is everyone taking AIG at their word
-snip-

They're not.

I've heard Andrew Cuomo, the NY AG, has requested detailed info on the AIG bonuses (who, how much, why and who approved it etc). Hopefully we'll know more about them soon.

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

A 100% tax when they followed the law as Dodd wrote it?

Bad precedent IMO.

At 98% the employee would be losing money, there's not enough left over for state tax (maybe not SS either).

Who should be punished here, the employees getting the bonus or the execs at AIG? I think the latter yet this proposal penalizes the former. IMO, another example of 'ready, fire. aim' in Washington DC driven by political populism.

Anyway, this is Congress's fault for doing a poor job with their bailout plan. Now they're trying to act indignant (sp).

Maybe Congress oughttta be taxed 100% on their compensation for screwing this thing up in the 1st place?

But I think they're gonna have hard time writing this up so it's accurate and effective. I suspect some who received bonuses likely deserved them. They need to write this tax law damned carefully or they'll leave too many loopholes. Then there's gonna be Constitutional challenges. IIRC, we've got punitive tax (100%) on illegal drug sales, but that's an illegal activity; working for AIG isn't.

It they do get it passed, I expect the 'Law of Unintended Consequences' will bite down hard on a$$ fairly quickly.

Fern