show us who got the AIG bonuses....

[rundownfid]

"In the race to see which company can prove to be the greatest fool in the this whole, sordid financial meltdown, AIG has pulled into solid first place. While I suppose it is we the taxpayer that ends up being the biggest fool of all, the decision and insistence to pay out $121 million in bonus money -- a big chunk of which goes to the unit from where a lot of the financial foolishness sprung -- wins the award for greatest callous disregard of taxpayer money. AIG has started revealing which companies were handed our bailout money, how about which employees were handed our bailout bonus money."

Smoke and mirrors. The real travesty is that the US Gov't gave out loans without even thinking through what effect that would have on such things as existing contracts. Had the Gov't kept both of their left feet out of AIGs back yard the company could have failed and the existing contracts be legally broken during the bankruptcy process. However, Gov't being bigger and smarter than everyone else had to "fix" it. We now have a bigger mess that will last longer and is more dangerous than the original problem. The biggest fool is the voter, we have saddled ourselves with a incompetent Gov't and he is us.

 

[bk43]

Originally posted by stiab:
Incentive plans yes, but contracts no.

An incentive plan is a performance contract as legally binding as any other contract would be on all involved.

Bob

 

[publius]

This bailout, like every other government venture, is awful. The government should not be in the business of giving money to private businesses. That being said, they did give AIG money with no conditions on how it should be spent. It now is none of their business how that money is spent, it's not government money anymore. These bonuses are part of the employees compensation packages. Call it a bonus or whatever you like, it is part of their salary. If the Fed. asked me for the names of the executives who got bonuses, I would tell them what they can go do with themselves.

 

[Faulkner]

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.....

They are not entitled, they earned it. These are employees at the manager level who were presented with a "incentive" contract and performed to the goals of the contract. They are NOT bonuses.

Two things here: First, the media is not reporting this accurately and is hyping it up. Second, this is what happens when socialism mixes capitalism. Capitalism would have let these businesses fall or stand based on performance without a bailout. If socialism is what we want, then they just need to throw more money at it.

 

[stiab]

An incentive plan is a performance contract as legally binding as any other contract would be on all involved.

I think not. I worked under incentive plans for many years, and also administered them with a Fortune 500 company, and they never met the requirements of a legally binding contract. They were in fact altered midstream as necessary to adjust to various market changes. I think the description of them as "contracts" uttered by AIG and repeated by others here is just an excuse to continue their flawed business practices.

 

[tom turner]

If the government wants to give the people's money away . . . let them give it back to the people.

The citizens have lost 11 Trillion Dollars in this debacle . . . if the government wants to piss away OUR money, let them return it to the taxpayers.

Otherwise, let capitalism run its course and these crooks will be put out of business . . . leaving America to rebuild stronger than ever.

 

[yashua-p]

NO! I don't like the appearance this gives. BUT Even more important, I don't want a "servant of the people" dictating how much ANY person can earn. These "servants" vote themselves raises almost anytime and are "intitled" to retirements that none of us will ever see. I want the opportunity to make as much as I can without anyone determining if it is too much. My regret is that I didn't do better with the opportunities that I had. Maybe I should have gone into politics so I could determine your income and benefits.

yashua

 

[john3136]

Sounds like the US govt is doing the same as the Australian govt: Throwing taxpayer dollars around without putting any conditions on the recipients.

One of our banks down here has been given a government guarantee on all deposits, since then they have relocated 500 jobs to India and sent 100 execs on a luxury "bonus" holiday. Can't remember if it was 1 week or 2, roughly $3900 per night accommodation.

 

[danski]

I believe truckemup97 and bk43 are correct.

Perhaps if "salary fulfillments" instead of "bonuses" had been used in the wording, a little
less rage might have been generated.

Those receiving the bonuses are not necessarily
top execs but sales personnel who performed as required.

A lot of people on the wires, including this one,
always say the press never gets anything right.
Maybe this is just another example of that
cynicism.

And having Barney Frank "enraged" over this is just laughable.

 

[truckemup97]

Originally posted by danski:

And having Barney Frank "enraged" over this is just laughable.

Yeah, I was laughing at him earlier until I realized that he will never be held accountable for his actions.

 

[Jetstream]

What's a 165 million compared to the 150 plus billion they've already taken from we the people? Why wasn't Pres' Obama outraged at the 150 billion or the fact that most of that money went around the world to the mega banks?

 

[Munsterf18]

Originally posted by bk43:

Originally posted by Munsterf18:
I call BS.

Without the bailout they would be bankrupt and would get no bonuses. Renegotiate their contracts or fire them. They shouldn't profit from failure and the need of the country to bail them out.

What happened to the UAW workers? They got their contracts "renegotiated." What happened to the airline workers? They got their salaries and pensions "renegotiated" in Federal Bankruptcy Court.

You take the taxpayers money, you live by the taxpayers contracts - period. Anything else is spin by the execs to gain at our expense.

Munster

Nope. You are mixing up three very distinct situations that cannot be compared. In bankruptcy the court voids all the contracts and tells the parties involved what the new terms are. Outside of bakruptcy, the UAW and an automaker can negotiate and mutually agree on new terms. The AIG situation is entirely different. The existing employment contracts can't be unilaterally or retroactively changed and so must be honored.

This is why many argued that these financial institutions should be allowed to go into bankruptcy. Then the court can step in and deal with these existing contracts. Of, course, we didn't do that as it would have taken another chance for the government to screw things up off the table.

Bob

I still disagree. Terms of the bailout, and there's still 30 billion outstanding to be paid, should be no bonuses. Out of bankruptcy, just as the UAW did, renegotiate their contracts. These contracts could, and should, be broken or renegotiated now. Failing that, I agree with you, withhold the bailout $$, let them go bankrupt, and break the contracts in court. Give them the choice, but make the answer no bonuses.

I've long been against using taxpayers money to bail out a company that is still a going concern, with stockholders, bonuses, etc. If the bailout is necessary, it should be done only after they are bankrupt. Private equity financing would have ensured that the bonuses didn't get paid and the contracts were renegotiated, so should the govt.

It's not a private company anymore, it's been nationalized, and limits should be set.

Cheers,
Munster

 

[2000Z-71]

Better yet, show us which representatives and senators received campaign contributions from AIG.

 

[Denver Dick]

This thread is a bit funny for two reasons:

1. What the heck did folks think was going to happen when the government threw hundreds of billions of dollars out for the taking with hastily written legislation passed in a big hurry.

2. This whole 165 million dollar thing is not much more than a clever diversion. Everyone is outraged about it, but it's just a drop in the bucket. It's the old slight of hand trick. Get the folks to focus on the 165 million dollar ball in the left hand while they steal (or throw away) a TRILLION dollars with the right. Let's focus and keep our eyes on that right hand.

How about we worry about where the $9 BILLION in earmarks are going to go in the the new 400+ BILLION dollar budget. Or, let's find out where the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars of "stimulus" is going.

JMHO

 

[rburg]

I'm just an old hillbilly who sometimes tries to use common sense. Yes, calling the contractual payments by the term "bonus" is designed to outrage everyone. So look at who is using it and why. No, I don't like it much, either. But I do understand the argument being made that only one division or corporate entity lost its ass while others were populated buy people making good decisions and earning their little division or maybe even separate corporate entity gobs of money.

Those who feel the company should just be allowed to go bankrupt do have some interesting if short sighted points. If we allow them to go bankrupt, we not only don't need to pay the contractual requirements of employment contracts, we don't need to pay the various insurance contracts that became losers. Of course that might mean a few hundred big banks fail, and that many of the nations pension plans fail, but its OK. In the long run maybe it would be good to untangle all this mess.

It certainly would tend to lessen trust in the high flying organizations which promote complex financial instruments.

 

[Ogandydancer]

Originally posted by truckemup97:
Here's the problem, though. If the don't pay them, they run the risk of being sued for breach of contract. Many of the people getting a bonus are working in parts of the company that actually did make money, and deserve the bonus for their performance. The rest of the company did so poorly that it ate up any profits that these profitable arms made.

These bonuses are a part of their compensation package, spelled out in a contract.

That is where I fault the company for being stupid enough to accept a contract of that nature in the first place.

 

[stiab]

These bonuses are a part of their compensation package, spelled out in a contract.

I don't understand why people keep saying this. In most states non-bargaining employees don't even have a contract covering their employment, must less their compensation. You are drinking AIG's coolaide when you fall for their "contract" claim.

 

[Bat Guano]

This isn't about contracts or even money--it's about power and arrogance. (I personally prefer the term, hubris.) The amount in question isn't all that much by current standards (!). But it does hit a nerve with a lot of already very unhappy people. When you're walking on eggs, don't hop.

Obama and the surrounding gaggle of kleptocrats who seem to run the country at the moment have mounted the tiger--and they are clueless about how to stay on, how far to go, and how, if ever, to get off again. The historical track record of these sorts of people isn't good; and "stuff" happens faster nowadays.

Like I said, when you're walking on eggs--don't hop.

 

[7003006]

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.....

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.

 

[7003006]

Originally posted by stiab:

These bonuses are a part of their compensation package, spelled out in a contract.

I don't understand why people keep saying this. In most states non-bargaining employees don't even have a contract covering their employment, must less their compensation. You are drinking AIG's coolaide when you fall for their "contract" claim.

I'm not a business big wig or anything but I know BULL S$%# when I smell it.