jerryzflies 0 #51 March 18, 2009 Quotethose boners were written into the stimulus bill from the get go, did any of the democreeps read it or did our president read it in it's entirety, educate yourself Our president at the time of the AIG bailout last Sept. was, of course, George W. Bush. Maybe you'd forgotten.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #52 March 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteThis disregard for the rule of contract law by the Dems is very similar to the Republicans disrgard for Habeas Corpus laws after 9-11. "Ya, but these guys are assholes. They deserve it." is not an excuse. Um - I'm afraid that it is a different thing. It's not called "salary." It is called "bonus." Contract has such thing as what is called, "efficient breach." I've had bonuses for showing up to work which were a way for a company to pickup relocation costs I had to reimburse a previous employer for and to provide a competitive salary until my restricted stock package vested (which would ultimately be 1/3-1/2 of my total annual compensation) without requiring them to make an exception for me in base salary. Some companies in the financial industry like to make a bonus paid annually a significant fraction of the total compensation package as a form of golden handcuffs. People are less likely to leave for greener pastures when 1/3-1/2 of their salary is contingent on sticking around until fiscal year end. Multi-year deals make things even messier for changing jobs. "Bonus" is just a name. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #53 March 18, 2009 Quote "Bonus" is just a name. They can call it whatever they like. I still resent taxpayer money (my money) going to further enrich a bunch of fat cats whose incompetence and greed brought their company to its knees.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #54 March 18, 2009 QuoteI think most of the time Obama is just speaking to the masses, knowing that his proposals aren't actually going to result in a thing wrt these bonuses, but it still looks good. Bingo! "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #55 March 18, 2009 QuoteQuote "Bonus" is just a name. They can call it whatever they like. I still resent taxpayer money (my money) going to further enrich a bunch of fat cats whose incompetence and greed brought their company to its knees. I resent a lot of things my taxpayer money pays for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #56 March 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote "Bonus" is just a name. They can call it whatever they like. I still resent taxpayer money (my money) going to further enrich a bunch of fat cats whose incompetence and greed brought their company to its knees. I resent a lot of things my taxpayer money pays for. Me too, but the 418 AIG financial products employees — who have received bonuses worth $395,000 on average, strike me as the least deserving recipients of taxpayer funded largesse I can possibly think of. These people ruined their company and had a major role in precipitating a world wide financial crisis.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #57 March 18, 2009 >did any of the democreeps read it or did our president read it in >it's entirety . . Probably not. I get the feeling Bush didn't do a lot of reading. On the plus side, the leader of the GOP is now supporting the poor, beleaguered AIG executives. Good to see someone standing up for the little guys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #58 March 18, 2009 Quote>did any of the democreeps read it or did our president read it in >it's entirety . . Probably not. I get the feeling Bush didn't do a lot of reading. On the plus side, the leader of the GOP is now supporting the poor, beleaguered AIG executives. Good to see someone standing up for the little guys. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bonus_stakes_analysis Not too far off, quoted from the link above: Quote"I'm outraged by this," said Baucus in a statement. "At one point the Treasury was in a position to stop these bonuses. Those were the terms of TARP, terms that I helped draft." But talk of legislation only leads to more uncomfortable questions for Democrats. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., won passage of a provision earlier this year that they said would have prevented the type of payments now at the center of a storm. It was dropped without explanation in the final compromise on the economic stimulus measure, replaced by a less restrictive set of conditions backed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and accepted by the White House. "The president goes out and says this is not acceptable and then some backroom deal gets cut to let these things get paid out anyway," said Wyden. These @ssholes knew from the get-go... ...it's a show...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #59 March 19, 2009 Thank you for pointing this out. It took a deliberate act of Congress to get these bonuses paid.Specifically, it was inserted by a member of the Senate Banking Committee.More specifically, by Chris Dodd, Senator from Connecticut. It's still Bush's fault. Chris Dodd, clearly, was duped by evil colleagues of Lucifer. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #60 March 19, 2009 QuoteThank you for pointing this out. It took a deliberate act of Congress to get these bonuses paid.Specifically, it was inserted by a member of the Senate Banking Committee.More specifically, by Chris Dodd, Senator from Connecticut. It's still Bush's fault. Chris Dodd, clearly, was duped by evil colleagues of Lucifer. clicky QuoteSen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm. Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. . “We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon. “But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.” Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd’s spokeswoman denied the senator’s involvement. Dodd is chairman of the Senate banking committee. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #61 March 19, 2009 I don't think this is very legally cut and dried given the fact that taxpayer $$ infusion vice bankruptcy put AIG in its current state. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FAIL (I know who was president at the time and don't care). These bonuses are one more reason that beautifully illustrates that point. The bonuses in question were paid under contracts written in MARCH 2008 and were not performance based. The company is not bankrupt (it should be) with access to the requisite cash to execute the terms of its contract. Should companies owned by the State [barf; abhorrent concept] and all employees thereof be exempt from the ex post facto and contract interference protections afforded under the Constitution, Article I, Sections 9 and 10? I think that sets a dangerous precedent and a start down the slippery road to more State control ala the Soviets. Hmm...I can see why Democrats would like that. I do not. With regards to efficient breach, Robert Birmingham in "Breach of Contract, Damage Measures, and Economic Efficiency, 24 Rutgers L.Rev. 273, 284 (1970) (“Repudiation of obligations should be encouraged where the promisor is able to profit from his default after placing his promisee in as good a position as he would have occupied had performance been rendered”. I don't think that the case here, were these bonuses not paid as contracted. I don't like the damned bonuses. The company should be bankrupt. I like throwing these Constitutional protections away even less. [barf]Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #62 March 19, 2009 QuoteThank you for pointing this out. It took a deliberate act of Congress to get these bonuses paid.Specifically, it was inserted by a member of the Senate Banking Committee.More specifically, by Chris Dodd, Senator from Connecticut. It's still Bush's fault. Chris Dodd, clearly, was duped by evil colleagues of Lucifer. But the record shows that on Nov. 25, Treasury Department officials signed a securities agreement to provide $40 billion to AIG in exchange for preferred stock and rights to buy common stock. In that 586-page document, the agency explicitly allowed AIG to pay individual executives as much as 3.5 times their base salary without any approval. The agreement also allowed AIG to set aside as much money for such bonuses for 2008 as it had in 2006, a year when the insurance giant was raking in vast amounts of profit from a financial bubble that would later maim the world economy. Who was in charge of the Treasury on Nov 25 last?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #63 March 19, 2009 QuoteQuoteThank you for pointing this out. It took a deliberate act of Congress to get these bonuses paid.Specifically, it was inserted by a member of the Senate Banking Committee.More specifically, by Chris Dodd, Senator from Connecticut. It's still Bush's fault. Chris Dodd, clearly, was duped by evil colleagues of Lucifer. But the record shows that on Nov. 25, Treasury Department officials signed a securities agreement to provide $40 billion to AIG in exchange for preferred stock and rights to buy common stock. In that 586-page document, the agency explicitly allowed AIG to pay individual executives as much as 3.5 times their base salary without any approval. The agreement also allowed AIG to set aside as much money for such bonuses for 2008 as it had in 2006, a year when the insurance giant was raking in vast amounts of profit from a financial bubble that would later maim the world economy. Who was in charge of the Treasury on Nov 25 last? Chris Dodd Barney Frank Obama OK, who was it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #64 March 19, 2009 Anvil, you are exactly right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #65 March 19, 2009 Vinnie: The issue really comes down to this - are the bonuses "wages?" If they are "wages" then they should receive their "wages." If they are "bonuses" - that is, received for "merit" of something of that nature, then it seems fairly easy to call them off. Also look at it this way - is not "renegotiation" an option? In many ways, a termination of employment for cause can allow an employer to reneogiate a contract. Let's say that these "bonuses" or "retention pay" were negotiated back in 05 or 06 or 07. Most of us here realize that the company was run into the fucking ground by these recipients by the decisions that they made back then. I'll put it this way - let's say you hire a financial planner. You've contracted with them a bonus structure in order to make sure this guy dosn't go elsewhere, because he's new and innovative in his approach. If he's still with you in three years, he'll get a bonus from 2007 come to him. Everything looks swell. It seems like he's really doing some good things for you. Come 2009, it turns out the guy has left you all but penniless. HE then demands his substantial bonus from 2007 because of all the work he's done. This guy drained you of every fucking cent. And he is expecting a "bonus" for doing it. What do you do? Pay the guy what he says he's owed? Reward his misfeasance or malfeasance? You've seen the results of what he did. Here's what you'd do, Vinnie. You'd say, "Go fuck yourself." Let's say it was somebody else. You decided that the business is worth investing in at this point and front a good chunk of change to buy shares. Then the board or officers pay that money to the guys who screwed the company over. Your investment is not used to build the company up but to pay off the assholes who broke it down. We don't tolerate that shit from anybody. I usually have a choice about this. I'm mad as hell. This violates the economic principles that I hold dear. Ex post facto? No, I don't think they should be taxed. I think the company should have withheld it and let the common law decide what it to be done with the money. I'd go so far as to say it is "impractical" to pay it. However, assholes in the treasury department, acting pursuant to congressional directive, allowed it. No fucking investors would have accepted this. None. And these guys who sold the company down the river should perhaps be paid their 2007 bonuses in $1.3 million in 2007 products. Those are my thoughts. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #66 March 20, 2009 From what I read, the contracts were not performance based, but I'd have to reserve judgement myself. I've no personal desire to read them. Performance based or not, they were paid for work done in 2008. It's currently 2009. I think the willingness of Congress to pass a law ex post facto with regards to a contract between two entities is worrisome in so many regards. To me, this is blatantly unconstitutional - res ipsa loquitor based upon Article 1, Sections 9 and 10. But I'm not a lawyer and don't have your insight into the inner workings of Constitutional law. I don't know what any of these execs did or what their roles in AIG are - my concern is with setting a HORRIBLE precedent due to the anger of the masses that would place contract law within the U.S. on dangerous ground. This should not HAVE to be challenged in a court. Government intervention on these grounds is scary to me. Republics cannot function in a capitalistic manner when the State may intervene in contracts and ex post facto laws may be enacted. I don't like the damned bonuses, but not knowing the contracts, roles of the execs, and the specifics can't comment with certainty as to them. I can state unabashedly that I consider the Congressional response to these bonuses most troubling to my fundamental beliefs in government. Had bankruptcy been allowed to proceed, this mess would not have occurred. Thoughts? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 March 20, 2009 QuoteIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FAIL I asked you before, but you failed to answer, so I'll ask again. What do you think would have happened if AIG would have been allowed to go bankrupt? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #68 March 20, 2009 Vinnie: I got to thinking about your posts. Here is my response: Article I, Section 9 of the Const. states that no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. Now, it was a while since I dealt with these issues. So I looked into it. First - an "ex post facto" law is one passed after the fact or commission of the act which retrospectively changes the consequences of the deed. An example may be a law passed that criminalizes online commentary on AIG bonuses by short squids with big bellies. A Bill of Attainder is similar, but there are differences. A Bill of Attainder is a legislative act that applies to named individuals or easily ascertainable gfroup members to inflict some form of punishment on them without a judicial trial. Now, this isn't ex post facto - why I initially waved your comments off. But, jeez, this does sound like a Bill of Attainder. First - it identitifies individuals working for certain firms making over $250k per year. So we've got the identifiable class element. The second element is whether there is a legislative intent to punish. On one side, we can see that Congressmen gave plenty of comments about how mad they were. On the other side, and I would need to spend hours looking into it, is whether punishment is okay if Congress can show another legitimate reason. My point? Vinnie - I owe you a beer. THis looks like a Bill of Attainder to me. My fear? What is the easiest way for Congress to defeat the Bill of Attainder allegation? Think about it. By expanding the scope of the punitive tax to a larger and less ascertainable class of persons - persons for whom punishment is not directed. A corollary? Vinnie may whine, "This law retroactively taxes all short squids with big bellies on the basis of consumption of tequila! This is a Bill of Attainder." Congress then fixes it by retroactively taxing all military persons who drink alcohol. Says military man, "Why am I being punished?" Congress responds, "You're not. Vinnie's being punished, but in order to do it we have to treat a bunch of people like him. Sucks to be you, but at least you did nothing to deserve it." Yep, I believe that I was misguided. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #69 March 20, 2009 QuoteQuoteIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FAIL I asked you before, but you failed to answer, so I'll ask again. What do you think would have happened if AIG would have been allowed to go bankrupt? You need only to look and see who got the most money from whom. That is how this admin decided who to let fail. Let me know what YOU find."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #70 March 20, 2009 QuoteEliot Spitzer is back and he's talking. The thought of this, no doubt, brings a small shiver to the boardrooms of some of the perps walking around trying to figure out how to hide the money this week. Today Edward Liddy testified that there have been death threats made to or about executives who received bonuses, so no names will be put on the record, but these anonymous players must know that the jig is up in the land of easy-money. Isn't what to do a no-brainer for these great Americans? Today in Slate Eliot Spitzer has a short op-ed that speaks volumes about what is going on, and indirectly, if you follow the money, what happened to him. Plainly stated, Spitzer brings the AIG Ponzi Scheme one step closer to the revered establishment when he explains how the bailout money was funneled straight into the top players, with Goldman Sachs being the name that comes up again and again. These top players already got bailout money, and Goldman is looking at zero losses at this point, while regular Americans are being asked to make concessions or just plain losing everything. here are the biggest financial entities in the world, making billions on what appears to have been nothing but air traded back and forth, and having gutted the American people they are walking away with 100% return to their stockholders. In return AIG seems to think that its appropriate to pay themselves bonuses with the leftover funds. This leaves AIG still a wobbly shell with no plan of how to go forward, and the threat of the collapse of all of the world's financial markets still up in the air. So, what was all that bailout money for? Apparently to make sure that no one at Goldman or the other few top firms in the hand-out-line lost anything! http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/132547/was_eliot_spitzer_taken_out_because_he_was_going_to_bust_aig/stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #71 March 20, 2009 QuoteToday in Slate Eliot Spitzer has a short op-ed Who'd Spitzer bang to get this job? Eliot Spitzer is back and he's talking (is his somber wife beside him?). The thought of this, no doubt, brings a small shiver to the boardrooms of some of the perps walking around trying to figure out how to hide the money this week. (They're scared of Spitzer Swallows? Doubtful.) and indirectly, if you follow the money, what happened to him. (What happened to Spitzer? Well, they followed the money) Spitzer brings the AIG Ponzi Scheme one step closer to the revered establishment when he explains how the bailout money was funneled straight into the top players, with Goldman Sachs being the name that comes up again and again. (I wonder if that has anything to do with these places being payors on AIG's guarantees.) These top players already got bailout money, and Goldman is looking at zero losses at this point, (Gee - those of us who said the bailout is a bad idea don't get as much political ammo as saying it's not being handled right.) while regular Americans are being asked to make concessions or just plain losing everything. (Gee - what are your conceding, Mr. Spitzer? Or is this just your effort to build a legacy?) here are the biggest financial entities in the world, making billions on what appears to have been nothing but air traded back and forth, and having gutted the American people they are walking away with 100% return to their stockholders (who happen to be the American people, in large part.) In return AIG seems to think that its appropriate to pay themselves bonuses with the leftover funds (something that congress - specifically Chris Dodd - instructed them to do) QuoteThis leaves AIG still a wobbly shell with no plan of how to go forward, There's a good point. This bailout is being doen with no long-term plan. , what was all that bailout money for? Apparently to make sure that no one at Goldman or the other few top firms in the hand-out-line lost anything. (Or, more than likely, something so that politicians could look like they are doing something. "Why, Rome is burning and people are saying we're doing nothing." "To try wouldn't help." "Well, we've got to show them. Get all resources we can to dump all the water we have on those fires." "Now the city has burned down and the fire brigades used all the fresh water! They took it for themselves! LEt's go after the greedy water hoarders!" Note: take a look at this thread on a Spitzer gem: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3163001#3163001 More of his self-serving crap. Only now instead of blaming Bush, he's taking the popular route and going after AIG. Mind you, the law meant nothign to him. Another note: He had a demonstrated history of cracking down on prostitution - then getting caught as a whore-lover. Now he's goign after AIG and the banks. Which, obviously, leads me to suspect that he is one of those benefitting from this. He's deflected in that manner before. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #72 March 21, 2009 I don't get why it isn't ex post facto. The bonuses were earned in 2008. 2008 is over and changing the tax rate for money earned in 2008 via wage or bonus just seems like it fits the bill. What am I missing?Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #73 March 21, 2009 Probably a lot of bad things in the short term. For the long term, capitalism would have run its course. Pain would have been felt. Several banks and companies might have gone bankrupt in addition to AIG due to its holdings. Not having thoroughly examined the assets of AIG myself, I can't say with certainty and doubt you can either. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #74 March 21, 2009 QuoteI don't get why it isn't ex post facto. The bonuses were earned in 2008. 2008 is over and changing the tax rate for money earned in 2008 via wage or bonus just seems like it fits the bill. What am I missing? If I may offer a guess, might the ex-post-facto refer to matters of criminal legality? Tax code isn't a matter of criminal law? ???? ???So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #75 March 21, 2009 I thought of that too, but from reading the articles in question the constitution doesn't seem to single out criminal activity. I would think it would apply to any aspect of law. It doesn't make sense to me. If ex post facto doesn't apply to taxes, what's to keep Congress from retroactively taxing me at a higher tax bracket for 1994-2007 in lieu of the current budget crises? Citizen, hand it over to the State or else. Lawrocket will enlighten me, I'm sure. I honestly say that I don't get it. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites