Rich keep getting richer. NO LUBE used on the 700 billion dollar bailout.

Chunkee

Lifer
Jul 28, 2002
10,391
1
81
Retention payments my ass.

How about this... none of us pay taxes next year, since the Govt. seems to just want to throw it all away and empower a select few.


AIG RICHY RICH KIDS.
 

venkman

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2007
4,950
11
81
repost. Yep, screw the little guy for wanting to keep his $25/hr salary with medical and let these clowns take $100s of billions to buy new jets. Gotta love the priorities in congress.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
50,088
41,038
136
AIG's new CEO is only taking a single dollar for his compensation this year and the top 60 executives won't be getting bonuses.

Ashooh said the retention program does not include anyone in the firm's financial products business, the tiny arm of the company that torpedoed AIG with its high-risk, bad loans.

Even though there are more layoffs every month, AIG says its top talent is being recruited to rival companies. In fact, the company says two of its top people just left this week, despite being offered big retention payments. AIG says it needs its best people to keep its healthy businesses profitable until it can sell them and the company plans to sell 65 percent of its businesses to repay its federal loan and get back on track.

Try to control your hysteria and actually read.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
These retention bonuses are shocking.

Even if the people who fvcked AIG are not getting the bonuses, why should the government be paying for the others to get them? If I don't get a raise next year because of the economy, should gov give my company cash to give me a retention bonus so that I don't look elsewhere?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
These retention bonuses are shocking.

Even if the people who fvcked AIG are not getting the bonuses, why should the government be paying for the others to get them? If I don't get a raise next year because of the economy, should gov give my company cash to give me a retention bonus so that I don't look elsewhere?

In fact, the company says two of its top people just left this week, despite being offered big retention payments.

It's the healthy business units that got contagion from the bad unit that are getting retention bonuses. As the article states, there are no bonuses to the people responsible for AIG's demise.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Nice. The only other server guy where I work is being deployed soon so I'm going to ask for a retention bonus.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Skoorb
These retention bonuses are shocking.

Even if the people who fvcked AIG are not getting the bonuses, why should the government be paying for the others to get them? If I don't get a raise next year because of the economy, should gov give my company cash to give me a retention bonus so that I don't look elsewhere?

Think of it.

If the Gov't bailed them out for $100, which was the value of th company at the time. How will the govt realize money if the value of the company, due to the good people leaving, is now only $80?

The idea is to pay the people to stay, since they actually make the company PROFIT, they generate more money, and value, than they consume. THus, since they do generate that value keeping them helps the government realize more money.

Let's say a bigwig who was offered a retention bonus of $300,000, actually brought in $5MM in revenue. By not enticing him to stay there he'll just leave and you've now lost 4,700,000 in profit and real value.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Perhaps AIG should insulate its bonus funds so that if one unit screws up the other will not suffer.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: K1052
AIG's new CEO is only taking a single dollar for his compensation this year and the top 60 executives won't be getting bonuses.

Ashooh said the retention program does not include anyone in the firm's financial products business, the tiny arm of the company that torpedoed AIG with its high-risk, bad loans.

Even though there are more layoffs every month, AIG says its top talent is being recruited to rival companies. In fact, the company says two of its top people just left this week, despite being offered big retention payments. AIG says it needs its best people to keep its healthy businesses profitable until it can sell them and the company plans to sell 65 percent of its businesses to repay its federal loan and get back on track.

Try to control your hysteria and actually read.

AIG would be in no position to offer these "retention" payments if it wasn't for public money.

Maybe things like "Bonuses" or "Retention Payments" are part of the problem, AIG should be able to keep its top talent without having to bribe them to stay...I guess that is what happens when you run a company into the ground. In the meantime, this is public money that is trading hands from you and I, to very affluent and connected people. Yeah I kind of have a problem with that.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Perhaps AIG should insulate its bonus funds so that if one unit screws up the other will not suffer.

That's what it did. It was already reserved for. It's the sensationalized reporting and idiot ATPNers who can't read that thing this is some kind of travesty.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Originally posted by: OrByte
AIG would be in no position to offer these "retention" payments if it wasn't for public money.

Maybe things like "Bonuses" or "Retention Payments" are part of the problem, AIG should be able to keep its top talent without having to bribe them to stay...I guess that is what happens when you run a company into the ground. In the meantime, this is public money that is trading hands from you and I, to very affluent and connected people. Yeah I kind of have a problem with that.

You do realize we want AIG to pay back the bailout. If you had your way, AIG would now collapse and we get nothing back. :roll:
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
65,275
13,539
146
I have no problem with a company paying performance bonuses or retention bonuses...with their own money, but ANY company that's on the "public dole" like AIG is should NOT be paying bonuses of any kind with the taxpayer's money...which is exactly what's going on here.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
50,088
41,038
136
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: K1052
AIG's new CEO is only taking a single dollar for his compensation this year and the top 60 executives won't be getting bonuses.

Ashooh said the retention program does not include anyone in the firm's financial products business, the tiny arm of the company that torpedoed AIG with its high-risk, bad loans.

Even though there are more layoffs every month, AIG says its top talent is being recruited to rival companies. In fact, the company says two of its top people just left this week, despite being offered big retention payments. AIG says it needs its best people to keep its healthy businesses profitable until it can sell them and the company plans to sell 65 percent of its businesses to repay its federal loan and get back on track.

Try to control your hysteria and actually read.

AIG would be in no position to offer these "retention" payments if it wasn't for public money.

Maybe things like "Bonuses" or "Retention Payments" are part of the problem, AIG should be able to keep its top talent without having to bribe them to stay...I guess that is what happens when you run a company into the ground. In the meantime, this is public money that is trading hands from you and I, to very affluent and connected people. Yeah I kind of have a problem with that.

I have a problem with AIG not being able to pay the government back if their profitable divisions turn unprofitable because of a talent drain that wasn't stopped.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: OrByte
AIG would be in no position to offer these "retention" payments if it wasn't for public money.

Maybe things like "Bonuses" or "Retention Payments" are part of the problem, AIG should be able to keep its top talent without having to bribe them to stay...I guess that is what happens when you run a company into the ground. In the meantime, this is public money that is trading hands from you and I, to very affluent and connected people. Yeah I kind of have a problem with that.

You do realize we want AIG to pay back the bailout. If you had your way, AIG would now collapse and we get nothing back. :roll:

Small minds and short-term thinking go hand in hand.

It's better if we let all of the talent leave the company and be left with a rotting husk of a company that's worth nothing at all, despite previously having business lines that were immensely profitable and well-run.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: OrByte
AIG would be in no position to offer these "retention" payments if it wasn't for public money.

Maybe things like "Bonuses" or "Retention Payments" are part of the problem, AIG should be able to keep its top talent without having to bribe them to stay...I guess that is what happens when you run a company into the ground. In the meantime, this is public money that is trading hands from you and I, to very affluent and connected people. Yeah I kind of have a problem with that.

You do realize we want AIG to pay back the bailout. If you had your way, AIG would now collapse and we get nothing back. :roll:

If I had my way we wouldnt have given anything to AIG to lose. They would have collapsed just like every other business that failed.

But I forget....they are "too big to fail" :roll:

Forgive me for being a regular Joeblow from the ghetto, Im no expert. but at least I have the right sense to recognize when we are getting screwed by paying taxes just so that those taxes can be turned around and handed to wall street millionaires to pad their checking accounts.

F that.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: OrByte
AIG would be in no position to offer these "retention" payments if it wasn't for public money.

Maybe things like "Bonuses" or "Retention Payments" are part of the problem, AIG should be able to keep its top talent without having to bribe them to stay...I guess that is what happens when you run a company into the ground. In the meantime, this is public money that is trading hands from you and I, to very affluent and connected people. Yeah I kind of have a problem with that.

You do realize we want AIG to pay back the bailout. If you had your way, AIG would now collapse and we get nothing back. :roll:

Small minds and short-term thinking go hand in hand.

It's better if we let all of the talent leave the company and be left with a rotting husk of a company that's worth nothing at all, despite previously having business lines that were immensely profitable and well-run.

and you call me small minded? Hey Ive always said I dont understand this bullshit. I have a right to be angry though..and besides..thats pretty much all any of us can do anyway?

But lets take your scenario one step further and say that if these bright and "talented" people left AIG to work elsewhere..that leaves AIG in the dust but that gives one other company...hopefully a better funded and better managed company, that much of an edge in an industry that could really use a boost.

calling me small minded...and somehow you forgot how these company exist in a free market capitalistic society where the best businesses usually end up on top.

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
50,088
41,038
136
Taxpayers actually stand to make money from the AIG deal if the company is kept alive long enough to sell off most of its businesses in an orderly fashion. Not to mention the tiny benefits of not adding a hundred thousand additional people to the unemployment rolls and consequent loss of tax revenues.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
Originally posted by: K1052
Taxpayers actually stand to make money from the AIG deal if the company is kept alive long enough to sell off most of its businesses in an orderly fashion. Not to mention the tiny benefits of not adding a hundred thousand additional people to the unemployment rolls and consequent loss of tax revenues.

at the end of the day I hope that it all plays out like you and LegendKiller say it will.

If there is a plan out there lets hope it works. In the meantime stories like the OP piss me off and I am not going to apologize for it just because we are being told it is for the good of the economy.

A wallstreet millionaire is getting a million dollar "retention payment" and somehow I am supposed to be happy for him?

I was raised with my dads mentality which was you do the best job you can because if you dont there are 100 people right behind you waiting to do your job for you. That doesn't jive with AIG bribing people to stay and work for them, not in my book.

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
50,088
41,038
136
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: K1052
Taxpayers actually stand to make money from the AIG deal if the company is kept alive long enough to sell off most of its businesses in an orderly fashion. Not to mention the tiny benefits of not adding a hundred thousand additional people to the unemployment rolls and consequent loss of tax revenues.

at the end of the day I hope that it all plays out like you and LegendKiller say it will.

If there is a plan out there lets hope it works. In the meantime stories like the OP piss me off and I am not going to apologize for it just because we are being told it is for the good of the economy.

A wallstreet millionaire is getting a million dollar "retention payment" and somehow I am supposed to be happy for him?

I was raised with my dads mentality which was you do the best job you can because if you dont there are 100 people right behind you waiting to do your job for you. That doesn't jive with AIG bribing people to stay and work for them, not in my book.

No, you're supposed to be happy the company's management is doing it's best to maintain profitability and thus will be able to repay the government loans.

You can't just take a guy off the street and say "Hey, you've got zero experience or training in managing/selling billions of dollars worth of insurance lines or investments but you're cheaper than the last guy so you're hired".
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
50,088
41,038
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: K1052
Taxpayers actually stand to make money from the AIG deal

I have a bridge for sale for you too

You are wrong with such frightening consistency I'm surprised you still have the gall to post in this forum.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
50,088
41,038
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: K1052
Taxpayers actually stand to make money from the AIG deal

I have a bridge for sale for you too

You are wrong with such frightening consistency I'm surprised you still have the gall to post in this forum.

Only in the eyes of rich Republicans

How's that Drive for $5 going?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: OrByte
and you call me small minded? Hey Ive always said I dont understand this bullshit. I have a right to be angry though..and besides..thats pretty much all any of us can do anyway?

But lets take your scenario one step further and say that if these bright and "talented" people left AIG to work elsewhere..that leaves AIG in the dust but that gives one other company...hopefully a better funded and better managed company, that much of an edge in an industry that could really use a boost.

calling me small minded...and somehow you forgot how these company exist in a free market capitalistic society where the best businesses usually end up on top.

LOL. So now we're stuck with AIG you want to let it die, reducing the repayment? Hey, here's an idea, I'm going to force you to buy a house that's worth $100,000. Then, I'll not let you maintain it, but the mortgage will still be $100,000. Then, when it's a decaying pile of shit and I've stripped away all of the sinks, toilettes, windows, tile, carpet, wood floors, wiring, shingles, bricks, and wood, and use all of that to enhance my own house, I'll call your loan. You'll still need to pay me back $100,000, despite the hole in the ground that was your house only now being worth $5. Wow, you got boned. But hey, you improved my house for me, thanks!

Pretty dumb idea eh?

LOL, there is no "free market". That's your first mistake. You're second one is engaging in populist class wars.