As previously mentioned, Labor Unions have modified Collective Bargaining Agreements, why the hell shouldn't an executive? Working people have had their pensions modified, why should a "contract" bestowed on fat cats by fat cats be honored at the expense of taxpayers. Crazy, isn't it?
show us who got the AIG bonuses....
- Thread starter godlessgael
- Start date
7003006
Member
The UAW had an incentive to renegotiate,the majority of the bailout depended on them making concesions and no bailout meant no job.With AIG the cows are already out of the barn.
bk43
Member
We are not talking contracts negotiated between unions and companies that are covered by FLSA. The employees we're talking about getting these bonuses at AIG are exempt employees. Those at the executive level are covered by individual employment contracts that specify all compensation including salary, defered, bonuses, stock options, perks etc. Some other employees are covered by defined incentive compensation agreements.
All of the above, whether union, executive or incentive, are legally binding on all and cannot be unilaterally and/or retroactively changed. These are very structured instuments designed to meet federal law and IRS codes. I may not like it and you may not like it but it is what it is.
But, do not fear, Washington is on this and all will be well.
Bob
rewster
Member
Now that really warms the cockles of my heart
klondike
Member
Our Illustrious Leader received a $101,332 payment (Bonus) from AIG.
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-...01332-Bonus-from-AIG
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-...01332-Bonus-from-AIG
oldRoger
US Veteran
Ah the bonuses, yes, but;
The bonus money is a tiny fraction of the total going to AIG. The administration and congress want us to worry about this fraction and not the Billions gone elsewhere.
Classic misdirection, obfuscate-dazzle-blow smoke we, watch a few million while Trillions have gone missing.
The bonus money is a tiny fraction of the total going to AIG. The administration and congress want us to worry about this fraction and not the Billions gone elsewhere.
Classic misdirection, obfuscate-dazzle-blow smoke we, watch a few million while Trillions have gone missing.
stiab
US Veteran
It is not the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) that enforces contracts between unions and companies. ALL NONEXEMPT EMPLOYEES are covered by the FLSA whether there is a union contract or not. My point is these management argeements are not contracts just because AIG referred to them as that. Today NY AG Cuomo has announced that his investigation shows that the payments DID NOT have to be made.
rundownfid
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 4
Perhaps there was some way that AIG could have wiggled out of the contracts, however, the real issue should be that AIG is bankrupt and should have been allowed to fail. Instead the Gov't decided to lend them massive amounts of money and put in the bill language that allowed them to honor all previosly agreed to contracts. These payments may or may not be wise, just, etc, but it appears they are legal, binding and now paid. The rest is just hot air, the jack asses in Washington huffing and puffing about what is wrong with this picture, they should look in the mirror, that is what is wrong with this picture.
Bassamatic
US Veteran
Guys, this is just smoke and mirrors put out by the MSM and Obama's people.
Fact: These bonuses represent just on tenth of one percent of the bailout money. Well, that's what Hannity said last night.
Another fact: This is NOT news. The terms of these contracts have been known to Congress and Obama since the original money was given to the banks. They are throwing it on the table now to detract the people from the fact Obama is slipping in the polls, and all the furor over his huge porkulous bill he just signed. It worked too, look how upset everybody is.
From what I have heard, the bulk of these bonuses are going to mid-level managers and marketing reps for meeting their annual goals. I haven't have time to research that, but it's what I heard on the news the morning.
Fact: These bonuses represent just on tenth of one percent of the bailout money. Well, that's what Hannity said last night.
Another fact: This is NOT news. The terms of these contracts have been known to Congress and Obama since the original money was given to the banks. They are throwing it on the table now to detract the people from the fact Obama is slipping in the polls, and all the furor over his huge porkulous bill he just signed. It worked too, look how upset everybody is.
From what I have heard, the bulk of these bonuses are going to mid-level managers and marketing reps for meeting their annual goals. I haven't have time to research that, but it's what I heard on the news the morning.
Damn Yankee
Member
This is just pocket change compared to what they are sending to different country's around the world!
If you happened to watch Glenn Beck tonight he showed where Billions of dollars were sent.
If you happened to watch Glenn Beck tonight he showed where Billions of dollars were sent.
ChuckS1
US Veteran
I'm amused at all the "outrage" about this. For one, nobody's ever showed us the compensation packages for these folks and what the bonuses are for. We're all assuming some type of merit/performance bonus. So, until I see what the bonuses are for, I reserve judgment.
What we're falling for is the same old class warfare trick the Dems have always used. Why should these guys get all these huge bonuses when their company has lost so much money? Using that argument, why should the UAW workers get all their pay when GM and Chrysler are losing so much money? Shouldn't they be forced to give some back? And what about my kid's teacher when he doesn't pass a standardized test? Shouldn't the teacher be forced to give back some of her pay? Same logic applies...
Sure, these AIG guys have been demonized now because they make a lot of money, but there probably aren't any of us smart enough to do what they do and I, for one, don't begrudge somebody getting the most they can. If anybody says they don't try to get as much pay as they can, they're simply not telling the truth. There's an old saying that you don't get what you deserve; you get what you negotiate.
What scares me is the the Government is deciding who deserves what in terms of compensation. Who's to say when they decide they need to look at your pay and mine. You going to be just as outraged when they say you only deserve minimum wage?
What we're falling for is the same old class warfare trick the Dems have always used. Why should these guys get all these huge bonuses when their company has lost so much money? Using that argument, why should the UAW workers get all their pay when GM and Chrysler are losing so much money? Shouldn't they be forced to give some back? And what about my kid's teacher when he doesn't pass a standardized test? Shouldn't the teacher be forced to give back some of her pay? Same logic applies...
Sure, these AIG guys have been demonized now because they make a lot of money, but there probably aren't any of us smart enough to do what they do and I, for one, don't begrudge somebody getting the most they can. If anybody says they don't try to get as much pay as they can, they're simply not telling the truth. There's an old saying that you don't get what you deserve; you get what you negotiate.
What scares me is the the Government is deciding who deserves what in terms of compensation. Who's to say when they decide they need to look at your pay and mine. You going to be just as outraged when they say you only deserve minimum wage?
I agree, the govt should not decide what you and I make. But AIG is a BIG exception, because the govt. now owns 85% of AIG. It is a nationalized company, paid for with your and my taxes. That's the difference. The govt. should set the rates at a company paid for by the taxpayers.
Munster
jaysouth
US Veteran
I am amused by the sudden outrage about this issue. The bonuses were protected by language inserted into the bill by non other than Sen(D) chris dodd from conn. who is a world class liar and hypocrite. He is now outraged and promises to "do something".
Obama voted for the bill as a senator and now is one of the indignant. No one is reporting a $101,000 'bonus' that obama received from AID. This bonus was called a campaign contribution but smells more like a bribe.
obama is now trying to blame bush for the problem?
Do I smell "selective outrage". Congress and the MSM has known about these bonuses for months. Why the sudden outrage?
They are trying to divert attention from a growing awareness that our new emperor is an empty suit and slipping in popularity as we learn more and more about his less and less.
Obama voted for the bill as a senator and now is one of the indignant. No one is reporting a $101,000 'bonus' that obama received from AID. This bonus was called a campaign contribution but smells more like a bribe.
obama is now trying to blame bush for the problem?
Do I smell "selective outrage". Congress and the MSM has known about these bonuses for months. Why the sudden outrage?
They are trying to divert attention from a growing awareness that our new emperor is an empty suit and slipping in popularity as we learn more and more about his less and less.
greyhawk178
US Veteran
Originally posted by 7003006:
And as much as we hate it they ARE entitled.What if Friday your check was for half of what it should be because the majority owner just decided to pay you less?No bonuses next year but this year they must be paid.Originally posted by greyhawk178:
I can almost 100% assure you that these smug, me first, execs could care less how much We The People scream. They're ENTITLED.....
___________________________________________
The HUGE difference here is that my salary is not coming from a Gov't Bailout using tax dollars. Once you dare dig into the PEOPLE'S money, all bets are off IMHO. Pull back the bailouts and then see if AIG has the money to be generous with it's execs...I suspect not. It takes an especially uncaring individual to hold their hand out for huge bonus' when so may people are out of work. Talk about a caste system.....
_______________________________________________
And having Barney Frank "enraged" over this is just laughable.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I was laughing at him earlier until I realized that he will never be held accountable for his actions. [/QUOTE]
________________________________________________
Oh yes he will. And he won't be able to double talk that judge.....
rundownfid
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 4
Two points: ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, both are specifically unconstitutional. One or the other would have to be used to get this money back. The company was not owned by the government when the contracts were negotiated. The enabling legislation appears to have specifically allowed all existing contracts to be honored, and the company has met their contractual obligations. Now the Gov't is threatening these Citizens that if they don't "voluntarily" give the money back they will change the laws and make it illegal for AIG to have given bonuses. That is an ex post facto law, it is expressly forbidden, and for good reason. When one enters into a legal contract it is binding, if the Gov't wishes to change law they can only do so going forward, not punish people for doing what was legal when they did it.
Today I hear something even more insidious, a Gov't official claiming they will go in and change the tax laws to get that money back by taxing it 100%. That is a bill of attainder, passing a law that only applies to specific people. Unless they are saying that all bonuses paid in the first quarter of 2009 are to be taxed at 100% it is unconstitutional as an illegal bill of attainder, (if it is everyones bonus then it is still ex post facto, still unconstitutional).
As mentioned above I don't know all of the details as to what these people did to "earn" a bonus, but they appear to have met some performance standard that entitled them to extra pay. The company that contracted with them for this pay has paid them. Perhaps that is stupid, perhaps it is very stupid, but it isn't unconstitutional, it doesn't undermine sacred principles of law and centuries of practice. We are watching our government threaten private citizens with unconstitutional measures and are not reacting with outrage.
Now that the US Government is the majority stock holder they have the power to insist on a management team that will not pay bonuses, that is now their prerogative; but what they are threatening is all wrong, unconstitutional and hypocritical. The current situation is nearly unimaginable; that democratically elected officials would threaten to destroy the rule of law over a few million dollars when they have just squandered billions!
I apologize in advance for my emotional tone, this is very unsettling to me.
jonnyringo
US Veteran
I quit long ago. I am quite happy with my hounds, music, golf and tequila.Originally posted by godlessgael:
i seriously can't take this stuff anymore. I have got to stop reading the papers and listening to news. i am staying out of the politics section and not reading any more of this stuff in the lounge. chest pains......
Only news I get is a quick Drudge report.
America gets what she asked for and it ain't pretty.
J. Galt
US Veteran
Exactly! Don't fall for Obama's misdirection attempts.
ChuckS1
US Veteran
I have a big problem with the Government changing the rules in mid-game. If the bonuses were set before the takeover and the contracts are legally binding, the Government should not be able to come in and change the compensation ofter the fact. Do you really think that the Government employees would put up with having the Obama Administration come in and decide it didn't like the pay raise they got last year and take it away? Do you really think that Obama's going to give back the campaign contributions AIG gave him?
Again, this is playing the class warfare game. There's no sympathy for the AIG execs because they got a lot of money. If this was the sales guys who just happened to exceed their annual sales quotas, I doubt anybody would mind.
FrankD45
Absent Comrade
As I understand it, and someone did post this earlier, there was language in the bill that specifically allowed the bonus payout. What id interesting is that neither the House nor the Senate versions of the bill had that language when sent to the joint committee. The joint committee's job was to put both versions together into one bill that the House and the Senate would vote on. None of the 8 senators and representatives will admit to putting the language in. Also, someone mentioned wanting to know who got political "donations" from AIG. CNN reported that Dodd was number one, closely followed by Senator Obama of Illinois.
It has been said before, the best is yet to come.
Frank
It has been said before, the best is yet to come.
Frank
After reading some of the post in this thread it's over. It's going to be easy to suspend the constitution to remove somebody else's rights. Now I understand how people would just stand and watch as Jews and Japanese were just loaded up and sent to camps.
