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

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Typical idiot dems and their idiot supporters. Penny wise, pound foolish. Flailing around to recoup 0.097% of AIG's bailout money.

Typical Republican obstructionist, whining about anything Obama does.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Typical idiot dems and their idiot supporters. Penny wise, pound foolish. Flailing around to recoup 0.097% of AIG's bailout money.

when it's an allegedly teeny tiny part of a stimulus bill that has earmarks, we should look the other way and go ahead and flush that money down the toilet. yet when it's a teeny tiny part of an AIG stimulus bailout, all of the sudden it's time to be fiscally accountable.

 

[JTsyo]

If those execs have an ounce of sense they would just give the money back before something like this passes and their future bonuses get jacked too.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize
Typical idiot dems and their idiot supporters. Penny wise, pound foolish. Flailing around to recoup 0.097% of AIG's bailout money.

Typical Republican obstructionist, whining about anything Obama does.

Pfft, whatever, tax it at 150% for all I care. Oh, and here in Bizarro world when you are blindly defending (Bush) Obama, you might want to check the OP and see if it mentions (Bush) Obama at all.

 

[Fear No Evil]

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

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Typical idiot dems and their idiot supporters. Penny wise, pound foolish. Flailing around to recoup 0.097% of AIG's bailout money.

Compared to the (R)'s and their idiot supporters criticizing the 'porkulus' when they had their own share of pork in it?

 

[her209]

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

 

[TallBill]

It's a comical idea, but I really don't like the idea of 100% tax on anything.

 

[Drakkon]

You would think there would be some stopgap in the contracts to keep this from happening. I mean you loose a company money directly or indirectly then no bonus. If you make the company money you should get a bonus. Call me crazy but that's the way bonuses work in my "middle class" world. There should be a way for the govt to get a list of those who get bonuses -check the dept they work in - and if they in any way had their hands in loosing AIG money in the last year tax their bonus's at 98% as I'm sure there are some people in this group that got bonus' that did deserve them - AIG is a huge company and its unlikely all that money is going just to the ones that caused the problems

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: TallBill
It's a comical idea, but I really don't like the idea of 100% tax on anything.

me neither. i also have a feeling that there will be a lot of problems with it if it does pass.

they have a habbit of passing laws without looking knowing exactly who it will hit..


edit: also they were saying a few of the CEO's getting teh bonus haven't worked there for years. one guy is gettinga 3 million bonus but he worked there when AIG was doing great. it was part of his contract. how is it fair to take money from a guy who was running the company well?

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[cheezy321]

GREAT IDEA!!!

 

[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?

 

[waggy]

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?

hmm i get the feeling he did it that way on porpuse. Now he can fake his outrage over it and they still get the bonuse

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: waggy

hmm i get the feeling he did it that way on porpuse. Now he can fake his outrage over it and they still get the bonuse

Of course you do.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

My only concern here is that the people getting robbed of their bonuses are the ones that were running or working in profitable divisions of AIG. If someone is getting a bonus in a failed division, then obviously the bonus structure was problematic. I still think that the stimulus is BS and this and many other companies should have been left to sink or swim on their own, but taking a bonus away from someone that they were guaranteed for meeting performance standards seems counter intuitive to me. Do we as majority owners of this dismal company want the people who are actually contributing to the successes of the company to be chased away?

 

[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.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
My only concern here is that the people getting robbed of their bonuses are the ones that were running or working in profitable divisions of AIG. If someone is getting a bonus in a failed division, then obviously the bonus structure was problematic. I still think that the stimulus is BS and this and many other companies should have been left to sink or swim on their own, but taking a bonus away from someone that they were guaranteed for meeting performance standards seems counter intuitive to me. Do we as majority owners of this dismal company want the people who are actually contributing to the successes of the company to be chased away?

I'd like to know where they'll find work. And i'm sure there will be thousands of laid off execs clamoring for those positions even if they do leave.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
My only concern here is that the people getting robbed of their bonuses are the ones that were running or working in profitable divisions of AIG. If someone is getting a bonus in a failed division, then obviously the bonus structure was problematic. I still think that the stimulus is BS and this and many other companies should have been left to sink or swim on their own, but taking a bonus away from someone that they were guaranteed for meeting performance standards seems counter intuitive to me. Do we as majority owners of this dismal company want the people who are actually contributing to the successes of the company to be chased away?

Screw the bonuses, they should just be happy to be employed.

 

[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?

 

[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!"

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
My only concern here is that the people getting robbed of their bonuses are the ones that were running or working in profitable divisions of AIG. If someone is getting a bonus in a failed division, then obviously the bonus structure was problematic. I still think that the stimulus is BS and this and many other companies should have been left to sink or swim on their own, but taking a bonus away from someone that they were guaranteed for meeting performance standards seems counter intuitive to me. Do we as majority owners of this dismal company want the people who are actually contributing to the successes of the company to be chased away?

I'd like to know where they'll find work. And i'm sure there will be thousands of laid off execs clamoring for those positions even if they do leave.

Nice job thinking short-term. Long term, if you penalize the wrong people you'll lose them. They may stick around for a year b/c they have to, but when things get better they'll be the first out the door.

I know, I'm facing the same thing here. I work for a very profitable company. All of out sister companies are hemorrhaging money. We were told in the last year that:

1) Our company (which has a relatively young and healthy staff) would not be allowed to seek our own medical insurance b/c our leaving the group would negatively affect the rates and coverages for the staffs of the older, unhealthier companies.
2) Our medical insurance rates were going to go up b/c of the older, unhealthier companies. Previously, our employer paid 100% of the cost of the employee and 0% for dependents. Now they will cover 50% of employees and 0% for dependents.
3) We received no bonus last year b/c the other companies lost money.
4) Our 401(k) employer match was suspended indefinitely b/c the other companies lost money.

I still work here. The job market is too poor to not be thankful I have a job. But, the moment things turn around, there are several of us out the door. Why are we being punished b/c other people can't do their job?!?

 

[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"