How come the republicans arent screaming for aig to go bankrupt
 

To break up those 170 million in bonuses that they say contracts say they have to pay. Not a peep but the little uaw guys who dont give big contributions break the bastards contracts.Its very interesting.

Does AIG have to pay the bonuses with bailout money?

Have to? I don't think so. But what other money do they have to use?
If it wasn't for the bailouts, they'd be gone right now, not giving bonuses.

That's what I mean, let them pay the bonuses if they're contractually obligated, when they're actually earning their own money. I guess the bonuses were not based on incentives or profits?

Tony a couple weeks ago you went on and on saying how middle of the road you are... yet all I see you do is go after Republicans. What's up with that?

I think the bonuses are just contractual bonuses. We, average people, think of bonuses as a reward for a job well done, but at the CEO level of those companies, that's not how they think of them. To them it's just another way of receiving a portion of their pay.

Obama's team is looking into how they can block or recoup that money but I don't think they can. It's in their contracts, they are legally entitled to it.

many government officials were all over the sunday news show complaining, but to answer your question- they all conlcuded that it would not be prudent to let aig go bankrupt since we've given them 150b

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo says his office will investigate whether recipients of the payments were involved in the insurance giant's decline and whether the payments are fraudulent under state law.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4868077.shtml

In a letter to CEO Edward Liddy, Cuomo said he's been investigating AIG compensation arrangements since last fall and would issue subpoenas at 4 p.m. EST Monday if he didn't get the names of employees scheduled for bonuses plus information about their work and contracts.

Republicans never bite the hand of their masters.

And their masters haven't told them to bark about aig.

There's no mystery here.

Yeah, there was some interesting commentary earlier on CNN about that quick deadline.
But again, finding out who got them and whether or not they were responsible for AIG's decline is all well and good but it's still a bonus that's in their contract.

I'm not saying, in any of this, that I think these people deserve bonuses (I don't think they even deserve their jobs), but if it's legal, it's legal. There's not much they can do except try to prevent it in the future.

you didn't watch the news yesterday. several republican senators voiced their outrage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_175056.html

AIG has contracts to pay those bonuses... they don't pay they get sued = situation worse

why dont people pay attention?

So unions need to renegotiate their binding contracts at every market fluctuation but CEO bonuses are untouchable?

This 'bonus culture' that has developed among executives at large corporations is nothing more than theivery, especially now that their companies are so mismanged that they're using public funds to bail them out.

Tony this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. Many people are outraged about this and making noise.

You are really starting to look like a loon. Sorry but it's true.

Republican senators aren't the republicans that bark on the blogs and the boards.

It's not my problem if you don't understand the topic being discussed.

Sadly this is true. Many CEO's now negotiate their pay contracts with less direct pay and more stock options and bonus structures. There are some CEOs who might earn a couple hundred thousand a year in base pay but the stock options and bonuses end up being in the millions. Some of the bonuses are simply based on how long you are at the job. Say, for example, at the two year mark a CEO might get a five million dollar bonus then another ten million when they hit the five year mark. So it doesn't matter how the company does, they get the bonus just for showing up to work.

In the long run the little guy is the one that always gets fucked. He is told now he has to fork over his tax dollars to bailout a bunch of rich people because if he doesn't they will collapsed and he will lose his job. If he decided to buy a house or two and try to flip them and make some extra income and ended up getting caught with the declining market and having them foreclosed on he is irresponsible and he is the root of the problem. But if a company bought 300 houses and lost a bunch of them and declare bankruptcy that is somehow just business.

Somehow there are people who thing the union auto workers are solely to blame for the car industry collapse even though Ford just announced that they renegotiated with the union and even before the renegotiation the cost of labor was only about 10% of the cost of making the car. So that 10% is somehow response for the entire downfall of the company.

It is a strange world for sure.

Hey, I don't make the laws. If it was as simple as "so they have to but CEO's are untouchable?" then I'm sure this would all be taken care of already and we wouldn't be discussing it.

CEO's got where they are by knowing how to make their money stick.

Again, you're (probably intentionally) misunderstanding the topic.

The topic is why the attack barkers like splum and the other dittoheads are mute when it comes to AIG and the banker bailouts.

None of us have any influence or real interaction with "official" republicans. I didn't figure whatshisname was talking about them, I thought it was self-evident that he was talking about here, on our board.

It would be nice to see the official republicans attack the bankers and financial giants with as much fervor as they attack folks with mortgages and jobs. I'm still waiting to see the republicans say "no" to finance.

added: of course it's always possible that I misinterpreted the topic myself, and he meant the "official" republicans not the dittohead barkers.

no problem, the bonuses are based on fraud and those guys should be rather put into the jail. here is great resume from someone else:

"In a Nutshell:

- Banks gave lier loans and insured those loans through AIG

- AIG gladly insured them thinking this is not our problem. AIG took the
premium and executives took big bonuses

- Those loans defaulted. Banks went to AIG asking for insurance money

- AIG said we never had the money.

- AIG told the US treasury Pay us or ....

- Treasury said here are the billions.

- AIG took the money, gave bonuses to themselves and paid the banks.
Now banks have the money and all the land and houses all over the country
.. is it that easy and simple to defraud the system ? Hope FBI grabs them.
"

AIG goes under and you have total collapse of everything I mean forget it

they are the ones always bitchin so that where im going. i also said i thing tim g was a rotten choice for treasury

hah, i'd say nice try but it's not. i'd even try explaining it to you but you've made it clear that would be a worthless endeavor.

keep pointing fingers with your head in the sand, it suits you.

Thats true but paying bonuses to the guys that worked in the dept that caused this shit is nuts.

Yeah those CEO's are pretty sharp. How do you think their stock options are doing? BTW the CEO of AIG is not up for a bonus and is not part of this.

The worst defense of the bonuses is that they will lose good people. If the people were that good they would not be belly up.

He was j/k.

That is such BS. We are propping up the insurer of these "toxic assets" but we are also throwing cash at the owners of these "toxic assets". Come on this makes no sense, do one or the other and be done with it.

God you sound so arrogant & clueless. Keep drinking the kool aid.

Wasn't Splum banned or am I mistaken? That would be one reason why he's mute on it.

I guess it depends on if they sold their stock pre-collapse or not.

Here's a link for all the Kool Aid drinkers. From the Huffington Post no less. Actually yesterday it was Barry and his henchmen that felt there was nothing they could (or wanted) to do about the aig mess:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_175056.html


Carry on.

i know and it pissed me off also lol

haha cheers.:drinkup

Probably because there's not a damn thing that can be legally done about the bonuses.. and they're not the "whiny little bitches" team.

i already posted this link in post #11

Ah, indeed you did.:thumbsup

No they were part of the employment contract that they signed when people joined the company.

What this all boils down to is that the people running our government are so incompetent and sloppy that they would hand out bailout funds with little or no conditions attached. Seriously the folks in DC are complete idiots.

Anyone voting for their incumbant senator or congressman is part of the problem. These fucking clowns need to be sent walking in the next election. Get some newbies in there who at least don't have the experience to fuck things up this badly.

Here's how I see it - all these companies HAD a lot of money. They're now in the shithole. What's giving them MORE money going to do? Merely keep them out of the shithole for a few months as they blow through IT too. It was just a terrible mistake to start going down the bailout route to begin with with any company. I mean hell, if I worked lower-level at AIG, would I necessarily be happy right now that I still have my job? How secure is that job right now? Who tf would want to work there?

And yes, the AIG bonuses are ridiculous...the execs ran the company into the ground and are now being rewarded handsomely for it, blatantly in the public eye, with the only thing to back it up saying that "it's in contract". If they had any morality left whatsoever they'd turn down the bonuses, give the money to charity or whatever. SOMETHING so those fuckheads don't get money for doing a shitty job.

Fuck the bonuses and the stupid motherfuckers who decided to pay 'em. Fuck 'em regardless of their party affiliation.

Fuck 'em doubly hard because those very motherfuckers in the financial products department are the folks who allegedly caused the company's insolvency.

"We can't keep talent if we don't pay them bonuses.." BULLSHIT! They should be fired, not given bonuses. It would be good for the company if they left.

That said, AIG must be kept alive for the well being of the global economy.

LOL, funny because why would they WANT to keep them anyways, and at this point who else would WANT them? "Yea I drove one of the largest companies into the ground, but I'm quite a talent at it! Now pay me a muthafuckin bonus, bitch!"

as I wrote here already, the CDS contracts were based on fraud, AIG never had money to pay even 5% of them.
so you just simply put those people into the jail for creating fraud contracts and dont worry about bonuses for them at all :thumbsup
you cant get bonus, when your bonus performace was based on fraud.

but there is not enought money to pay for all of those CDS blackholes. maybe goverment can pay for AIG (remeber they will come next quater for another 20-30 billions and then quater after quater again), but then there are other players (eg.JPM) with CDS who are on the way to become same blackhole like AIG.

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR ALL FUTURE LOSSES on CDS.

so you can either bankrupt AIG and then like 50% of banking system or bankrupt USA, if goverment wants taxpayer to continue with covering CDS contracts.

or you can simply cancel all CDS contracts, because most of them were based on fraud (there were never money to cover the losses) anyway and save a big part of system.

I'm totally for allowing them to fail.



At the same time, I find it hilarious that the senators and congressmen expressing such outrage over the payment of pre-contracted bonuses are the same ones that just voted their personal expense accounts to be raised from 1.2 million $ to 1.6 million per year.


...and every penny of THAT money is coming from "bailout" (tax) money.


Where is the outrage over that?


.

Life long Republican, first time Democrat voter, who probably is really closer to a Libertarian if we have to use labels.

I see what you are saying, but on the other hand, the biggest part of me is like...

so what?

If we continue with these ridiculous bailouts, I see no way that we can possibly ever dig out from the mountain of debt. Rather than prolong that agony, I'd personally rather let the chips fall where they may now.

I might feel differently about that if I had any faith that we as a nation were going to learn anything from this, but I don't. We collectively live beyond our means, and someday, the piper is going to have to get paid.

I agrea, but first they need to pay back the 170 billion we gave them...

yes... they are contractually bound to pay them. this was one of many things that was overlooked when everyone decides that legislation has to be pushed through in a matter of hours.

these companies should have been allowed to collapse. all the fears about how important companies are is total bullshit and dream up by people who have never seen REAL financial crisis... like living in Russia and watching the Soviet Union collapse and a new Economy grow from the ashes. Then watching it all collapse again with the Ruble being devalued etc... markets WILL prevail. period. recovery WILL happen... without anyones help or tax payer dollars.

that's not true at all. people will wake up and still buy food and other goods and services. others will wake up and sell them... no matter what happens. there are cycles of growth and contraction... but there is no point where its all over and where consumers stop consuming.

The little UAW guys were not forced to to renegotiate their contracts, they sat down with the Big3 and discussed options and come to the joint decision it would best for all to cut back on UAW's pay and benefits.

Now the above scenario is exactly what the top AIG execs should have done with their employees, explain to them how yes contractually they are owed bonus money but given the current circumstance they should voluntary pass on receiving the money until the company is in a better financial position.

As for repubs not screaming about this, the only ones that matter are the politicians and Sen. Grassley (from Iowa) told them they should quit or commit suicide
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20083.html

how could they be bonuses if they are not based on performance? This is a mad house, I tells ya, a mad house!

There are bonuses that are not based on performance at all.
There are bonuses that have minimums set which can be higher based on performance.
There are bonuses that can range from 0 to unlimited based on performance.

Seriously people. These aren't burger flippers at McDonalds. Please stop thinking of them as just regular employees.