• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Finally a US Senator Said something that we have all been waiting for: AIG execs: Resign or commit suicide

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The contracts were regardless of performance. It's this kind of mentality that fucks the shareholders and now the taxpayers. We really need to revamp our country...the current political machine is like using a Model T as a daily driver...slower, less range, ineffective and will cost you far more daily than even a half-assed modern car.
 
My understanding is that:

1. AIG publicly disclosed the amount and details of the bonuses over a 1 year ago, so nobody can claimed to be shocked by this. Congress and Obama's outrage is bullshit, they knew about this a long time ago, way before the stimulus package was passed. They are just looking for someone else to blame.

2. There was a last minute amendment to the stimulus package by Chris Dodd (Democrat, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs) himself that exempted contractually obligated salary bonuses in place prior to (IIRC) Feb 11th, 2009 from any limits. Isn't he the guy screaming to tax them at 90% now?

3. The bonuses paid equal less than 1/10th of 1% of the total money AIG was given in the bailout. I'm more interested in where the other 99.9% of our money went.

I'm not defending AIG at all, but it's silly to think their employee bonuses are the big outrage in this whole bailout situation. And sorry for making this a P&N topic.
 
btw, i wanna know how japanese responded to this?

it's not really racist or anything, but someone's bound to be offended...

and crazylazy, did you even read the site?
 
Originally posted by: Paladin3
My understanding is that:

3. The bonuses paid equal less and 1/10th of 1% of the total money AIG was given in the bailout. I'm more interested in where the other 99.9% of our money went.

I'm not defending AIG at all, but it's silly to think their employee bonuses are the big outrage in this whole bailout situation. And sorry for making this a P&N topic.
Click to expand...

here's the problem.

the bonuses are a small amount compared to the bailout, yet these greedy bastards still want theirs despite having a failed company.

so they want the rest of america to suffer, while they still get theirs.

with that kind of mentality, what hope is there in giving them more money that it will be spent wisely?

might as well take our chances with the supposed economic collapse.
 
Originally posted by: da loser
Originally posted by: Paladin3
My understanding is that:

3. The bonuses paid equal less and 1/10th of 1% of the total money AIG was given in the bailout. I'm more interested in where the other 99.9% of our money went.

I'm not defending AIG at all, but it's silly to think their employee bonuses are the big outrage in this whole bailout situation. And sorry for making this a P&N topic.
Click to expand...

here's the problem.

the bonuses are a small amount compared to the bailout, yet these greedy bastards still want theirs despite having a failed company.

so they want the rest of america to suffer, while they still get theirs.

with that kind of mentality, what hope is there in giving them more money that it will be spent wisely?

might as well take our chances with the supposed economic collapse.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you say. I was only making those points to show how silly our moral outrage at AIG is when this whole situation is FUBAR on so many levels. Obama and congress whining to the press about how low AIG is for giving bonuses is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black (no racial pun intended).
 
Originally posted by: Fayd
btw, i wanna know how japanese responded to this?

it's not really racist or anything, but someone's bound to be offended...

and crazylazy, did you even read the site?
Click to expand...

You want to know how the Japanese responded to what, exactly? Do you want to know as a population or from a smaller sample size?
 
Originally posted by: alkemyst
The contracts were regardless of performance. It's this kind of mentality that fucks the shareholders and now the taxpayers. We really need to revamp our country...the current political machine is like using a Model T as a daily driver...slower, less range, ineffective and will cost you far more daily than even a half-assed modern car.
Click to expand...

From a lawyer friend of mine:
While I?m sure these lawyers are high-powered and although I haven?t seen a single contract, three legal theories quickly come to mind.

Some contracts have a force majeure provision, which frees the parties to the contract of liability when an extraordinary event (let?s say, a worldwide economic meltdown) has occurred. Though not as solid an argument, force majeure could also be an implied provision to a contract.

A similar provision (also arguably implied) is a hardship clause. Under this clause or theory, unforeseen events that fundamentally alter the equilibrium of a contract and result in an excessive burden being placed on one of the parties allow the contract to be voided.

Finally, there?s the ?impossiblility or impracticality? of performance based on a significant change in circumstances. A court might rule against A.I.G., but at least, this company that just can?t be allowed to fail should make a good faith argument.
Click to expand...
 
POPULOUS OUTRAGE....RAWR!

If you didn't want taxpayer money going to bonuses, maybe the stupid ass politicians shouldn't have bailed them out in the first place.

Pay no attention to the corrupt and incompetent politicians behind the curtain.
 
Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
From a lawyer friend of mine:
While I?m sure these lawyers are high-powered and although I haven?t seen a single contract, three legal theories quickly come to mind.

Some contracts have a force majeure provision, which frees the parties to the contract of liability when an extraordinary event (let?s say, a worldwide economic meltdown) has occurred. Though not as solid an argument, force majeure could also be an implied provision to a contract.

A similar provision (also arguably implied) is a hardship clause. Under this clause or theory, unforeseen events that fundamentally alter the equilibrium of a contract and result in an excessive burden being placed on one of the parties allow the contract to be voided.

Finally, there?s the ?impossiblility or impracticality? of performance based on a significant change in circumstances. A court might rule against A.I.G., but at least, this company that just can?t be allowed to fail should make a good faith argument.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Only one issue: How much would it cost to contest the contracts? It may have actually been less expensive to just pay the bonuses per the contracts than to waste money in court trying to contest the contracts.

As far as the threats of punitive taxes, etc, couldn't those be argued to be ex post facto and/or a bill of attainder?

ZV
 
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
From a lawyer friend of mine:
While I?m sure these lawyers are high-powered and although I haven?t seen a single contract, three legal theories quickly come to mind.

Some contracts have a force majeure provision, which frees the parties to the contract of liability when an extraordinary event (let?s say, a worldwide economic meltdown) has occurred. Though not as solid an argument, force majeure could also be an implied provision to a contract.

A similar provision (also arguably implied) is a hardship clause. Under this clause or theory, unforeseen events that fundamentally alter the equilibrium of a contract and result in an excessive burden being placed on one of the parties allow the contract to be voided.

Finally, there?s the ?impossiblility or impracticality? of performance based on a significant change in circumstances. A court might rule against A.I.G., but at least, this company that just can?t be allowed to fail should make a good faith argument.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Only one issue: How much would it cost to contest the contracts? It may have actually been less expensive to just pay the bonuses per the contracts than to waste money in court trying to contest the contracts.

As far as the threats of punitive taxes, etc, couldn't those be argued to be ex post facto and/or a bill of attainder?

ZV
Click to expand...

You still believe that the Constitution means something to the gasbags we allow to govern us? They place more value on a roll of toilet paper than they do the Constitution they swear to uphold when taking their oath of office. This entire issue is nothing more than a distraction while they get down to the serious business of spending your great grandchildrens money.
 
Originally posted by: Linflas
Funny, that is the same advice I would give to most of those worthless gasbags in Congress with their faux outrage and theatrics, especially Barney "Elmer Fudd" Frank.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: Paladin3
My understanding is that:

1. AIG publicly disclosed the amount and details of the bonuses over a 1 year ago, so nobody can claimed to be shocked by this. Congress and Obama's outrage is bullshit, they knew about this a long time ago, way before the stimulus package was passed. They are just looking for someone else to blame.

2. There was a last minute amendment to the stimulus package by Chris Dodd (Democrat, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs) himself that exempted contractually obligated salary bonuses in place prior to (IIRC) Feb 11th, 2009 from any limits. Isn't he the guy screaming to tax them at 90% now?

3. The bonuses paid equal less than 1/10th of 1% of the total money AIG was given in the bailout. I'm more interested in where the other 99.9% of our money went.

I'm not defending AIG at all, but it's silly to think their employee bonuses are the big outrage in this whole bailout situation. And sorry for making this a P&N topic.
Click to expand...

Your thesis relies on the assumption that Congress reads shit. You know they do not fucking read. They could not and did not read the stimulus plan before voting on it, so therefore I argue they did not read any disclosed information from AIG. Do you think if they read this information back then they would not have tried to address it? Hell yeah they would have done something! Even if you gave them only $40 billion(I believe this was the original amount), people would have been screaming to have their heads over the bonuses.
 
Originally posted by: Linflas
Funny, that is the same advice I would give to most of those worthless gasbags in Congress with their faux outrage and theatrics, especially Barney "Elmer Fudd" Frank.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Originally posted by: Fayd
btw, i wanna know how japanese responded to this?

it's not really racist or anything, but someone's bound to be offended...

and crazylazy, did you even read the site?
Click to expand...

You want to know how the Japanese responded to what, exactly? Do you want to know as a population or from a smaller sample size?
Click to expand...

er...smaller sample size i guess.

for japanese as a culture the concept of obligation to your company is a lot stronger than in the US. of course that isnt universal for every employee. but it does make sense why company leaders might feel an obligation to relinquish control when they fuck up royally.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
This is a bunch of politicos who don't understand SALES and INDEPENDENT CONTRACTING, taking advantage of the public outrage over the economy and scapegoating people who were promised and earned those "bonuses" for completing sales objectives.

The "bonuses" are paid to people who sold something for selling it. The size of the "bonus" is FAR overshadowed by the amount of capital those folks are bring in. THESE ARE NOT AIG EXECs (employees of AIG), getting bonuses, these are independent contractors to whom AIG has a contractual obligation to pay.

Everyone crying foul here is an idiot. Gee what a surprise, Obama is a clueless nincompoop!

If you want to be mad at AIG over something, be mad at them for how they cooked the books. Those ARE AIG employees who did that. AIG's problem is not how they structured their sales compensation, which is TOTALLY IN LINE WITH ALL OTHER INSURERS.

Get a clue before you get yourself all worked up over something you do not understand.
Click to expand...

normally you'd be right but the bonuses in question are to the financial products division which managed to completely flush all their business down the toilet by making extremely risky bets with no collateral to support it. These aren't bonuses to the top life insurance salesmen.
Click to expand...

If I interpret this correctly these are retention bonuses. That means they've already been notified that they will be let go in the next year. That said, AIG needs them around for a little while until their restructuring is complete. Any person who has been told that they will be let go in the near future would instantly start looking for a job. So rather than let them bail now they give them a bonus to stick around for a while longer. Standard practice from what I've read AND all the bitches in congress who are grand standing about it KNEW about it before hand and still gave them the money. Demagogueing is an ugly business and nobody plays it better than politicians.



Originally posted by: mcmilljb
Originally posted by: Paladin3
My understanding is that:

1. AIG publicly disclosed the amount and details of the bonuses over a 1 year ago, so nobody can claimed to be shocked by this. Congress and Obama's outrage is bullshit, they knew about this a long time ago, way before the stimulus package was passed. They are just looking for someone else to blame.

2. There was a last minute amendment to the stimulus package by Chris Dodd (Democrat, chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs) himself that exempted contractually obligated salary bonuses in place prior to (IIRC) Feb 11th, 2009 from any limits. Isn't he the guy screaming to tax them at 90% now?

3. The bonuses paid equal less than 1/10th of 1% of the total money AIG was given in the bailout. I'm more interested in where the other 99.9% of our money went.

I'm not defending AIG at all, but it's silly to think their employee bonuses are the big outrage in this whole bailout situation. And sorry for making this a P&N topic.
Click to expand...

Your thesis relies on the assumption that Congress reads shit. You know they do not fucking read. They could not and did not read the stimulus plan before voting on it, so therefore I argue they did not read any disclosed information from AIG. Do you think if they read this information back then they would not have tried to address it? Hell yeah they would have done something! Even if you gave them only $40 billion(I believe this was the original amount), people would have been screaming to have their heads over the bonuses.
Click to expand...

Don't look now... but you just defended congress for being incompetent and inattentive. Unless you were being sarcastic in which case I will change my batteries.

 
I think the real problem is the use of the word bonus has been changed over the years to make it sound more appealing to the employee. When I first started working here we had our base pay and two guaranteed bonuses. The guaranteed bonus was simply X% of our base pay distributed to us twice a year. We also had the opportunity to get a traditional bonus based on performance.

So what I'm getting at is that just because the media, the company, the government, etc. names it a bonus does not mean it is a bonus in the traditional sense of the word.
 
You people are the epitome of the blind leading the blind. The real crime isn't these bonuses, who gives a shit about them. The real crime IS the fact that AIG counterparties, specifically foreign banks, are siphoning off tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.

You go ahead and run around for chicken feed, it makes for entertaining shows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top