AIG Bonuses

[Tom]

Duplicity alert!

Barney Frank screams we need more oversight, the Prez says he will try to stop the bonuses.

Fact is, Barny and Dodd wrote the current bail out regs that specifically say all bonuses and contracts established before a certain date must be honored.
The bonuses being demonized meet the very regs that Barney set up! :lol::lol:

Democrats.......can't live with them, can't shoot them.

[cj's dad]

Doesn't Barney have to take care of his current "friend" who is an AIG employee?

[slewis]

Duplicity alert!

Barney Frank screams we need more oversight, the Prez says he will try to stop the bonuses.

Fact is, Barny and Dodd wrote the current bail out regs that specifically say all bonuses and contracts established before a certain date must be honored.
The bonuses being demonized meet the very regs that Barney set up! :lol::lol:

Democrats.......can't live with them, can't shoot them.


Really,

Show proof of that..... It was under the previous administration and Hank Paulson that set the rules for the current game... Not saying that Dems didn't raise the roof or object either... But their all to blame for this "oversight", which wasn't an oversight, just another "look the other way".
There is a lot of political showboating going on now... these guys are all Lawyers and ask any Lawyer what the first thing you learn in Law School is CONTRACTS.

[ArlJim78]

i am amazed at the faux outrage over this bonus issue.
suddenly everyone is all concerned about wasting money? please.
they should have never got involved in the private sector and let the market bankrupt the company originally, then these guys would have been flushed and not receiving bonuses right now.
I have to laugh at Obama yesterday saying he was choked up with rage over this. now he knows how it felt to us when he was cramming home his trillion dollar spendathon stimulus bill.

[highnote]

The more I think about the bank bailout the more it seems like theft.

All banks would not have failed without the bailouts. Some banks failed even with the bailouts.

In my opinion, all those banks who got involved with CDOs and other toxic assets, should have been made to take their losses -- rather than making taxpayers shoulder their losses. And now some are getting bonuses on top of this! And some got bonuses last year after a losing year -- like Merrill Lynch executives.

Think about it. If those large banks had been allowed to fail, wouldn't other banks have stepped up to the plate and started lending?

Instead trillions of dollars of taxpayer money was lent to Goldman, AIG, BoA, Citi, etc. And then on top of that AIG makes insurance payments to Goldman, AIG, Citi and a bunch of European banks.

This makes organized crime look like petty theft.

Socialism seems to be fine, as long as it involves bailing out companies with billion dollar losses.

This reminds me of the rich kid who is always screwing up, but can count on mommy and daddy always being there to bail him out.

Time to put an end to entitlement. Companies who screw up should not be rewarded.

[Tom]

Really,

Show proof of that..... It was under the previous administration and Hank Paulson that set the rules for the current game... Not saying that Dems didn't raise the roof or object either... But their all to blame for this "oversight", which wasn't an oversight, just another "look the other way".
There is a lot of political showboating going on now... these guys are all Lawyers and ask any Lawyer what the first thing you learn in Law School is CONTRACTS.

Paulsen did not write the LAW.

[ArlJim78]

here is an example of a real hypocritical nutjob, this one is a Republican. Here is his take on the AIG bonuses;


IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) - Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward accepting responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or killing themselves.

The Republican lawmaker's harsh comments came during an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT on Monday. They echo remarks he has made in the past about corporate executives and public apologies, but went further in suggesting suicide.

"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," Grassley said. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide. "And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."



The hypocrisy? AIG is one of his top donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00001758)! Maybe Senator Grassley should "resign or go commit suicide"

[cj's dad]

here is an example of a real hypocritical nutjob, this one is a Republican. Here is his take on the AIG bonuses;

The hypocrisy? AIG is one of his top donors (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00001758)! Maybe Senator Grassley should "resign or go commit suicide"

Maybe AIG stopped donating.

[Relwob Owner]

The more I think about the bank bailout the more it seems like theft.

All banks would not have failed without the bailouts. Some banks failed even with the bailouts.

In my opinion, all those banks who got involved with CDOs and other toxic assets, should have been made to take their losses -- rather than making taxpayers shoulder their losses. And now some are getting bonuses on top of this! And some got bonuses last year after a losing year -- like Merrill Lynch executives.

Think about it. If those large banks had been allowed to fail, wouldn't other banks have stepped up to the plate and started lending?

Instead trillions of dollars of taxpayer money was lent to Goldman, AIG, BoA, Citi, etc. And then on top of that AIG makes insurance payments to Goldman, AIG, Citi and a bunch of European banks.

This makes organized crime look like petty theft.

Socialism seems to be fine, as long as it involves bailing out companies with billion dollar losses.

This reminds me of the rich kid who is always screwing up, but can count on mommy and daddy always being there to bail him out.

Time to put an end to entitlement. Companies who screw up should not be rewarded.


Could not agree more....instead of lending out more money to these failed institutions, they should have let the process happen naturally and at least, businesses would have learned a lesson---the lesson being taught now is that no matter how much you mess up. you will still get bailed out---the fact that the gov't thinks these "loans" will ever be paid back is absurd...

[Tom]

Paulsen did not write the LAW.

Here is a recap - look under grandfather clause down a ways.....

http://www.wilmerhale.com/publications/whPubsDetail.aspx?publication=8790

[delayjf]

These bonases are payback for allowing their companies to be run into the ground. ;)

[Lefty]

tom, you're right. Rush said this morning that Chris Dodd wote a law exempting these bonuses into the Stimulus pkg, which Obama signed. Furthermore these bonuses were announced over a yr ago.
Obama and his minions either the biggest fools orthe biggest liars to occupy the Wh. Most likely ALL of the above.

[Tom]

OBama Himself said AIG acted recklessly, so it is just all the more amazing that all that money was thrown at them without proper oversight.
Turns out, they have been more of a money launderer than anything.

[PaceAdvantage]

here is an example of a real hypocritical nutjob, this one is a Republican. Here is his take on the AIG bonuses;One of the main differences between the right-leaners and the left-leaners on off-topic...the right will criticize someone from the Republican party where appropriate.

You almost NEVER see that (left-leaners criticizing Democrats) from some of our more prolific left-leaning contributors. Maybe a sentence or two once in a blue moon, when pressed, but certainly not a whole post or thread. :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

One of the main differences between the right-leaners and the left-leaners on off-topic...the right will criticize someone from the Republican party where appropriate.

You almost NEVER see that (left-leaners criticizing Democrats) from some of our more prolific left-leaning contributors. Maybe a sentence or two once in a blue moon, when pressed, but certainly not a whole post or thread. :lol:

You are nothing if not consistent.:rolleyes:

Screaming about less than 1% of the bailout money AIG got is a waste of time. But that's politics for you. On both sides of the aisle.

[slewis]

Paulsen did not write the LAW.

Tom,

Im not going to be a jerk and say "Bush was in office when Paulson jammed this down the administration's throats".

What I will say, and have been trying to convince everyone of, is that it's "one big ole' club" in Wash. Yes there is the Left, the Right, and some in between, but they ALL (get it Tom?) ALL, were, and are aware of what was going to happen, (Bonuses, contracts, etc.)

I know I would have done things differently, just like with GM.
I would have had the USGovt attorneys structure things so that all salaries are controlled by us, and all previous deals were off. If I had to force a temporary Bankruptcy to facilitate the legal obligations of employment contracts, (as in rip them up) so be it.
I would have cleaned house, ( you would have too ), but there are reasons why they didn't.
We dont know what they actually are, but America is fed up.
Bottom line... this is'nt a left or right issue anymore.... it's beyond that.

[prospector]

i think congress should continue to complain about the bonus fot A.I.G
as soon as they all give back the automatic payraise of $4,000 plus they all got in january...talk about a waste of money..

[sandpit]

Tom,

Im not going to be a jerk and say "Bush was in office when Paulson jammed this down the administration's throats".

What I will say, and have been trying to convince everyone of, is that it's "one big ole' club" in Wash. Yes there is the Left, the Right, and some in between, but they ALL (get it Tom?) ALL, were, and are aware of what was going to happen, (Bonuses, contracts, etc.)

I know I would have done things differently, just like with GM.
I would have had the USGovt attorneys structure things so that all salaries are controlled by us, and all previous deals were off. If I had to force a temporary Bankruptcy to facilitate the legal obligations of employment contracts, (as in rip them up) so be it.
I would have cleaned house, ( you would have too ), but there are reasons why they didn't.
We dont know what they actually are, but America is fed up.
Bottom line... this is'nt a left or right issue anymore.... it's beyond that.

It's good to see someone on here that doesn't have their logic filtered by "rose" or "azure" colored glasses. Greed and lust for power knows no boundaries.

[Tom]

Tom,

Im not going to be a jerk and say "Bush was in office when Paulson jammed this down the administration's throats".



Good, because no matter how you cut it, a dem congress wrote and passed that bill. Obummer voted for it and heartily endorsed it, waring how important it was to act immediately. Last I looked, presidents do not get to add to bills, only sign or veto.

I would have left every single one of them fail. We already have bankruptcy laws.

[Tom]

NYS AG reports after investigating that the bonuses HAD to paid according to law.

Now, Regress, er, Congress is talking about a special 95% tax to get the money back.

If you are outraged over the legal bonuses, what do you think of congress setting this precedent? Do you really want to allow your reprehensibles, er, representatives to have this much power? Any time they get pissed at someone, they just tax them to death?

Not me......not in my America.
George Washington would be leading an army against this bunch of despots.

[Tom]

Add this, the amendment that specifically allows the bonus was added by Chris Dodd. :D

And, the amount and due dates of these bonuses was public knowledge for over a year, so anyone using any due diligence would have known about them. but Obummer was in too much of a campaign hurry to get the bill passed for due diligence! :D

A clown.
A fool.
A rank amateur.
No experience, and it shows.
But true to form, he dodges his own responsibility and throws AIG under the bus. A true coward.

[Burls]

Democrats.......can't live with them, can't shoot them.
Funny, that's what I was thinking we should do with those folks in line for the megabonuses for driving the company into oblivion.

[ArlJim78]

madness, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are foaming at the mouth, now Chuckie Schumer is vowing that if these guys don't give back their bonuses that congress will make laws that will tax it away. this should send chills down your spine.

this is why many banks and some govenors don't want to take the federal help, they don't want the strings that are attached.

[riskman]

How can Congress be expected to write bills such as the TARP when it is the perpetrator of some of the worst excesses in fiscal irresponsibility and smoke and mirrors accounting ? Congress specializes in providing concentrated benefits to special interests groups, and spreading the costs across all taxpayers which only account for 60%. Just think the other 40% who do not pay taxes will not have the privilege of being "investors" in AIG and the other insolvent financial institutions.

What interest do the grandstanding empty suits in Congress have in conducting the "recovery" in transparent manner? None that I can see.

Lets face it we have been had. The looting of America by some of the richest and most powerful people goes on, with no end in sight. American tax payers are not only bailing out the American banks, they are also bailing out Europe. What suckers we are!!!

[ArlJim78]

the emergency stimulus bill was 6,000 times larger than this bonus issue, yet it was crammed down our throats with little debate in a matter of less than two days. It was published Thursday night, ratified Friday, and signed into law the following Tuesday (some emergency). how come they were so unconcerned about blowing taxpayer money back then?

this bonus issue will be flogged for days with endless speeches and posturing in congress by all the outraged parties.

[ceejay]

NYS AG reports after investigating that the bonuses HAD to paid according to law.

Now, Regress, er, Congress is talking about a special 95% tax to get the money back.

I think I saw "100% over $100,000."

In all fairness, these were retention bonuses not performance. But that said, AIG management obviously does not "get it." PR and public perception matters. They should have known there would be outrage, and restructured these in the first place.

Of course, in bankruptcy court these might have been tossed early on, or written down. Being "too big to fail" shouldn't necessarily be a license to immorality.

[ArlJim78]

i found this comment on another blog, its damn good.

I don’t understand why AIG doesn’t just borrow the same approach Obama took to defending (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801392.html) the earmarks in the $410B pork-laden spending bill he just signed in private. Seeing as how the bonuses were earned for work done in 2008, AIG should just call the bonuses, “Last year’s business” and make all kinds of lofty promises about how now, for real, going forward, now that they’re paid, AIG is really going to clamp down on abusing bonuses because paying them is despicable.

[ddog]

that comment is beyond funny.

THAT'S EXACTLY what is being done.

A contract WAS , notice WAS written and is now being enforced and the money IS NOW being PAID for LAST years "performance".


??????????

:lol: :lol:


there may be a semi-serious point though and that would be are the "traders" STILL allowed to open positions that in the past have failed?

AND , if yes, who or what is approving these NEW "contracts" , not the gvt I hope , they are so dumb that I would rather see Paris Hilton try to fill the bill in that regard.



In other words are they still trying to dig out of the hole by starting a new hole off to the side?

[slewis]

that comment is beyond funny.

THAT'S EXACTLY what is being done.

A contract WAS , notice WAS written and is now being enforced and the money IS NOW being PAID for LAST years "performance".


??????????

:lol: :lol:


there may be a semi-serious point though and that would be are the "traders" STILL allowed to open positions that in the past have failed?

AND , if yes, who or what is approving these NEW "contracts" , not the gvt I hope , they are so dumb that I would rather see Paris Hilton try to fill the bill in that regard.



In other words are they still trying to dig out of the hole by starting a new hole off to the side?

Although AIG was a triple AAA rated credit risk from an insurance perspective, they were never a good name from an Investment Bank prospective. When I was in the derivatives market, it was brutal trying to get stuff done with them, and the longer the contracts settle date, the worse.
Some types of derivatives settle years down the road, but it was tough going past 6 months with them.
That's why the other investment banks, like Goldman, had so much exposure, they proabably extended the recommended lines issued by their credit dept 10 fold.
Almost backfired in their face, big time.

I doubt VERY much the traders are doing anything at AIG regarding spec of new positions.... they have to be a pretty toxic name right now.
I would bet many traders are telling brokers "Dont even show my prices to AIG", it's a waste of time.

[Rookies]

One of the main differences between the right-leaners and the left-leaners on off-topic...the right will criticize someone from the Republican party where appropriate.

You almost NEVER see that (left-leaners criticizing Democrats) from some of our more prolific left-leaning contributors. Maybe a sentence or two once in a blue moon, when pressed, but certainly not a whole post or thread. :lol:

NONSENSE: as usual.

I've written threads on themes the right would be 100% in agreement with. I've even tipped my hat to some opposed to me, but funny you never remember that when you get the ideological prism fully opaque !

I'll be back to the topic after St. Paddy's Day... Cheers all ! ;)

[Tom]

I think I saw "100% over $100,000."

In all fairness, these were retention bonuses not performance. But that said, AIG management obviously does not "get it." PR and public perception matters. They should have known there would be outrage, and restructured these in the first place.

Of course, in bankruptcy court these might have been tossed early on, or written down. Being "too big to fail" shouldn't necessarily be a license to immorality.

The very people who purposely allowed the bonuses, and kicked out a republican amendment to specifically prohibit the AIG bonuses, Dodd, the largest benefactor of AIG bribes last year, followed closely by Obama, are the ones making the biggest noise. It is a diversion to keep focus off the 62 billion handed out to Europe as opposed to only 42 billion distributes here at home, OUR TAX money going out of the country.

AIG is closing down down very complicated businesses, and retention bonuses are there to ensure that the people who are experts in that work stay with them. They were very public about it, and as Congress went out of it's was to allow them, they have every right to issue them.

As far as that dimwitted Dodd and Schummer taxing it back, I point them to yet another document that neither of them has probably ever read - the Constitution.



Section 9 - Limits on Congress

.....No Bill of Attainder (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ATTAINDER) or ex post facto (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST) Law shall be passed.



Attainder
attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: AHD

In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment).

[ddog]

the biz was not that complicated, don't let them puff you on that front.

the wind downs are a done deal , all that's left is to sit around an pick up the phones and cut the checks.....


the retention bonus were more likely HUSH money.

pay up and we will stick around a bit and we won't sing like the rats we are.

else , since the wind downs are still ongoing and will be for years then why the large amount of people that were payed for retention are now GONE!

funny , the timing of that.

oh and it should be no surprise that anyone in gvt was bending over backward to "help" these guys.

after all they have bought the services of all of the pols, that's how they get in to start with.

someday you will awaken and figure out you have been living in a fascist one party state for many many years.

you can tell how bought off and brain washed most all in media and gvt have become as the Grassley solution seems to be pooh-poohed and laughed off.

Well, where I come from that would be EXACTLY the action one would expect.



Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson knew how to deal with the banks: "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out.


that's what you can do with your attainder rights.

the constitution has not been worth the paper it is printed on for many years in this country.

No reason to go up on your hind legs now at this late date.

[JustRalph]

I know I would have done things differently, just like with GM.
I would have had the USGovt attorneys structure things so that all salaries are controlled by us, and all previous deals were off. If I had to force a temporary Bankruptcy to facilitate the legal obligations of employment contracts, (as in rip them up) so be it.
I would have cleaned house, ( you would have too ), but there are reasons why they didn't.
We dont know what they actually are, but America is fed up.
Bottom line... this is'nt a left or right issue anymore.... it's beyond that.

That's called Nationalizing the auto companies. That is un-american.

when you cross the line like Bush did, you end up with problems like these. The free market should have been allowed to work. GM could be half way re-organized by now and things would be looking better for them. Nope..........now they are still dragging ass..........fighting with the UAW and begging at the foot of Obama. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

[ddog]

some people don't seem to realize that un-american is a pitifull sad joke.

the america you think you are still in and seem to describe is a caricature of an America from the 40 or 50s.

it died long ago.


aig WOULD have burnt down the only thing left of this country and many others that matters to those who run them and that's THEIR financial system that props up their power.
It would have also hurt a ton of people in the medium run although for the long run who knows for sure.
that some fail to understand that is troubling.


it's over and done with as anything other than a den of corruption and thieves run for and by same.

[chickenhead]

That's called Nationalizing the auto companies. That is un-american.

when you cross the line like Bush did, you end up with problems like these. The free market should have been allowed to work. GM could be half way re-organized by now and things would be looking better for them. Nope..........now they are still dragging ass..........fighting with the UAW and begging at the foot of Obama. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

I think the problem with doing that is thinking about who would have failed if we let the "bad" fail...it's basically everyone.

"Letting them fail" means these companies would have likely gone into bankruptcy all at roughly the same time (and scores of medium size firms, these are just the big ones) - either as a direct failure or as a side effect of someone else:

LEHMAN-MERRILL-GOLDMAN-MORGAN-CITI-BAC-(+COUNTRYWIDE)-AIG-MORGAN-WELLS (they aren't as clean as they suggest, I suspect)-GM-FORD-CHRYSLER (and all their suppliers)--pretty much every insurance company (their book values would evaporate overnight)-AXP-DISCOVER-CAPITAL ONE, etc.

This of course would have whipsawed around, it would be scores and scores of others. Basically the financial system, and the manufacturing base, for starters. And no credit on the horizon. Money can just evaporate.

I'm not saying this as an argument on what would have been better in the long run, what we've done or that...I have no idea. It's humbling tho I would say to consider what would have failed, had we let everyone fail.

The really funny thing is we don't have the political will for either, really. If we did nothing and let these corps fail, really fail (not nationalize or bailout), unemployment would be maybe twice what it is now...maybe more? Dow at maybe half of what it is at? Maybe less?

People would have been screaming their lungs out for the gov't to do something, we all know that. It would have been looked at as the biggest mistake ever made, by an overwhelming majority, to have done nothing. That's the other funny part...if things do recover fairly well...it will be looked at as one of the biggest mistakes ever to have done something...."Why'd you spend all that money, things weren't that bad!".

No one is going to come out of this happy...no matter what.

[slewis]

That's called Nationalizing the auto companies. That is un-american.

when you cross the line like Bush did, you end up with problems like these. The free market should have been allowed to work. GM could be half way re-organized by now and things would be looking better for them. Nope..........now they are still dragging ass..........fighting with the UAW and begging at the foot of Obama. :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:


Hey Ralph,

You want un-American? Hows about invading a solvent country under the guise of WMD's that didn't exist and that everyone and his mother knew posed no serious threat. Then bumbling it with no game plan so it evolves into a repeat of the biggest military mistake this country had previously made (Vietnam).
Trying to justify this action with constant reference to 9/11.
Plus...

The BD of directors of GM could have chosen Bankruptcy over taxpayer money. I didn't hear of that vote, did you?
Why allow the executives of a failed business to continue to run that failed business, using excuse after excuse to fail time and time again, while collecting huge salaries, bonuses, etc.
Yes, it's true Ralph, the GM worker is a multi-millionaire. His union made it possible to buy a house in Palm Beach, a condo in ST. Maaten, a ski villa in Aspen. Get real. He's a working person contributing to his community.
Americans are buying foreign cars every single day. In a short time companies like HYundai have taken another piece of the US market. More money leaving the country, but GM cant compete because of labor costs?? BS.
GM cars SUCK plain and simple... that's why they've failed, and these guys are still at the helm. Stop hiding behind the reality and dont BS me about how GM is profitable in Europe.
An American who choses to buy a foreign car should be making that choice knowing that he's paying more for an inferior product. But Ralph, that's not the case, and GM has been ok with that for a long time.
If we were selling our Military fighter jets do you think Hyundai or Mitsubishi could outperform us?
This is why this country is in the state it's in.. Failure is the "in" thing as long as those executive bonus checks flow and the right coffers are taken care of.

[chickenhead]

It's kind of like we gave ourselves some nasty disease, and there are only 4 known treatments, tho no one is really sure how well any of them work:

cutting of our head
cutting off both arms
cutting off both legs
cutting off....something else :eek:

Some people argue for this, some people argue for that...

The real trick is not getting sick in the first place. Once you have to start deciding what to lop off you are already in the hurt locker.

[ddog]

chick

there is the other that i really worry more about and that's the wasting disease.

it is never bad enough to force amputation and thus tie off the rot but over time the rot comes to be in all the limbs and by then you don't need to amputate you just slime out.

you know as well as i that if really tough actions are required that they only get traction in a real pinch after one just can't deny the need anymore.

I agree with you that the country can't actually govern rationally anymore on the real tough issues, the lack of attention span the constant need by most to score cheap political points makes any type of real tough compromise done above board so the public can support it impossible.

[ddog]

The very people who purposely allowed the bonuses, and kicked out a republican amendment to specifically prohibit the AIG bonuses, Dodd, the largest benefactor of AIG bribes last year, followed closely by Obama, are the ones making the biggest noise. It is a diversion to keep focus off the 62 billion handed out to Europe as opposed to only 42 billion distributes here at home, OUR TAX money going out of the country.

AIG is closing down down very complicated businesses, and retention bonuses are there to ensure that the people who are experts in that work stay with them. They were very public about it, and as Congress went out of it's was to allow them, they have every right to issue them.

As far as that dimwitted Dodd and Schummer taxing it back, I point them to yet another document that neither of them has probably ever read - the Constitution.


oh and since this AIG deal was many years in the making at least and in the spirit of bi-partisan posting of the obvious sins of both sides as alluded to by our dear mod i bring, far as i can tell,the LIFETIME top 5 on the AIG booty list.


dodd - 280K criminal scum drafter of regs
bush - 200K criminal in charge of the enforcement of regs
schumer - 111K ditto dodd
obbyama - 107K ditto bushy
macattack - 99K ditto dodd


so take your pick either the drafters or enforcers all slime and criminally negligent in my mind.

gitmo for the bunch of them.

[Tom]

Looks like congress pulled it off.
Lying about when they knew about the bonuses and denying that they specifically allowed them, they have gotten most people focused on that 1/10th of 1 percent, what Upchuck Schumer calls chump change, and totally ignore the real money pit going on.

Sad that so many Americans are just plain lazy and stupid.

So my question to all who are chomping at the bit to get revenge on these people who legally paid out contractually required bonuses ( never mind right or wrong, they had a contract) when we get back that 1/10th of 1 percent, just how much do you think that will change anything? Is there not a better way for Congress to spend it's time than to ignore 99.9% of the problem to go after the smallest fish in the pond?

If they had spent one half the time reading the damn bill before they passed it as they have going after essentially nothing this week, we might actually have saved some real money.

Pathetic.

[pktruckdriver]

Looks like congress pulled it off.
Lying about when they knew about the bonuses and denying that they specifically allowed them, they have gotten most people focused on that 1/10th of 1 percent, what Upchuck Schumer calls chump change, and totally ignore the real money pit going on.

Sad that so many Americans are just plain lazy and stupid.

So my question to all who are chomping at the bit to get revenge on these people who legally paid out contractually required bonuses ( never mind right or wrong, they had a contract) when we get back that 1/10th of 1 percent, just how much do you think that will change anything? Is there not a better way for Congress to spend it's time than to ignore 99.9% of the problem to go after the smallest fish in the pond?

If they had spent one half the time reading the damn bill before they passed it as they have going after essentially nothing this week, we might actually have saved some real money.

Pathetic.



Another perfect example of this.


BERNIE


Why are the people responsible for policing this , still got thier jobs????


Patrick


Yet instead of investigating Bernie, they were investigating Howard Stern, explain that, please. Besides telling dick jokes, is Howard really a criminal, no!!!

[Tom]

Here's a poll for ya......

Who has cost this country more money?
1. Bernie
2. Osama
3. Obama
4. Your momma

[delayjf]

You want un-American? Hows about invading a solvent country under the guise of WMD's that didn't exist and that everyone and his mother knew posed no serious threat. Then bumbling it with no game plan so it evolves into a repeat of the biggest military mistake this country had previously made (Vietnam).

I don't know, Europe (Twice), Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Somalia - Iraq seems American to me. Consider this, had we not gone into Iraq, Sadam would still be there and would have eventually rebuilt his WMD program, something he admitted he wanted to do. Syria would still have their WMD's and there is a good chance we would have had to fight this war sometime in the future or would have ala Hitler and WWII.

And by the way, there were WMD in Iraq, just not warehouses full of them. Some soldiers did suffer from sarin attacks.

[slewis]

I don't know, Europe (Twice), Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Somalia - Iraq seems American to me. Consider this, had we not gone into Iraq, Sadam would still be there and would have eventually rebuilt his WMD program, something he admitted he wanted to do. Syria would still have their WMD's and there is a good chance we would have had to fight this war sometime in the future or would have ala Hitler and WWII.

And by the way, there were WMD in Iraq, just not warehouses full of them. Some soldiers did suffer from sarin attacks.


Delay,

Much of Hussain's rhetoric was trash talk. He was scared to death of Iran and needed to contstantly spoof Iran (and other arab countries) into thinking he was more powerful then he really was. We supposedly fell for that spoof. This was an intelligence weekness of our govt leaders, not out intelligence.
Why?

Because most experts and agencies (as well as UN inspectors) were convinced he had nothing serious, not that he wouldn't continue to try, but was no threat, not even close, and wouldn't be for a considerable time.

Nevertheless, Ive discussed this issue with you before and I think we both agree, if you're going to go in, ANYTHING less the a full TRUE democracy, (not the paid off BS quasi Iran backed nonsense in control now) is unacceptable given the dangerous dynamics of the region.

The examples you gave above (with the exception of Europe ((and maybe Korea today), which most of was pro-west and democratic in the World War))are chicken feed and these countries can be brought down with economic sanctions, not military, if needed.

[Tom]

Because most experts and agencies (as well as UN inspectors) were convinced he had nothing serious, not that he wouldn't continue to try, but was no threat, not even close, and wouldn't be for a considerable
time.

Where is that video that disputes this? :bang:

BTW, AIG too broke to pay out contractual obligations such as bonuses, what about the 100 Grand they gave Dodd? Will he and Obummer GIVE BACK the money they took from them? After all, that was voluntary money, not contractual obligation money specifically authorized by Dodd and passed byt congress and signed by the Messiah.

Will they give it back???? :lol::lol::lol:

Will a Ho take back crabs? You have a better chance of that!

[Lefty]

Slewis, everything you say is hindsight. The President has to act on what he knows at the time. Worlwide intel said Saddam was working on Nukes. Let's say Bush did nothing and Saddam hit us with a "dirty" bomb. Then hindsight guys like you would be screaming that Bush had the intel why didn't he do something?
Also the Bush knew that Saddam was funding terrorists. AND, we did find 2 tons of enriched uranium. What do you think Saddam was going to do with that?

[delayjf]

Because most experts and agencies (as well as UN inspectors) were convinced he had nothing serious, not that he wouldn't continue to try, but was no threat, not even close, and wouldn't be for a considerable time.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, the 9/11 commission stated that all asumptions the Bush Administations based the need to invade Iraq about Saddam's WMD programs were "substantiated by Intelligence". After the multitude of Terrorist attacks culminating with 9/11, President Bush decided the US could no longer take that chance. That's not to say the intel was perfect, but the attack was supported by intel at the time. The intel community failed, but even so, consider for a moment the prospects of allowing Saddam to stay in power. He openly admitted that he would pursue WMD's. How long would it be before he succeeded. Eventually he would have reconstructed his WMD program or just bought what he wanted from Syria. Then where would we be??

are chicken feed and these countries can be brought down with economic sanctions, not military, if needed
In the meantime, thousands if not millions of innocent people would have been murdered, economic sanctions would not have prevented that.

[Marshall Bennett]

Its difficult for me to understand , given the contractual obligations of the employees were completely fulfilled , how they can have these bonuses cancelled or taxed at some inflated rate . Seems to me , Obama & Co. have intentionally re-directed blame here from his own office to save face . He now runs the risk of over-seeing what could be a deliberate infringement of the constitutional rights of those emplyees . Should this surprise anyone ? Just remember , for now on when you sign a contract , regardless of its nature , in the eyes of our own government its likely not worth the paper its written on .

[ddog]

ANY CONTRACT can be challenged in a court of law for any reason.

That is what should happen.

Contracts drawn up under false and/or misleading circumstances can and are broken all the time!

To look at AIG as one entity is one of the many problems with the issue.

The division that drew up these contracts that are awarding the so called retention bonus is the FP group NOT AIG overall.

The group that drew these up had a loss provision put in anticipating losses and set a firewall at a very low level of LOSS in order to keep the BONUS pool set out from being depleted when the 1000X greater losses than they were admitting to came about.

There is much to be looked at even beyond this from the little I have seen.

On the whole issue though , all the outrage and all the Bush and Bama plans to keep this thing afloat seem to be a fantasy of hope and bury your head in the sand and nothing much worse will happen.


The AIG FP part of this thing SHOULD have a plan by now that is layed out for all to see as to how it is wound down and how it will and IS impacting the rest of AIG who I expect is getting killed in their other business.

Since we are the shareholders the board and execs should be telling US what the exact details are of the plan and the schedule to arive at payback and/or wind down of the AIGFP.

Where are the loss schedules using various likely economic scenerio that may play out?

AND, since the only way to get any of this bail back is to sell off the other parts of AIG at some point , what is the plan for that and what is the timeframe as well as the profit we expect to get and how does the continued unwind of the AIGFP positions affect those other AIG divs that we EXPECT to sell at a profit?


Where are giether(the tool) and bernake(the clown) at in all of this?
What discussions are/have they had IF any on this.


Where is the plan - who manages the plan - what are the metrics to judge?

I still suspect and will check that AIG FP is doing deals now or in the very recent past that are almost as bad as the ones they are trying to unwind.

I know that the other AIG groups are using our TOO BIG TO FAIL to try to pull/win business from other firms who at this point have no such Fed stamp of approval on them.


A nasty nasty mess.

thx

bush paulson clinton rubin summers greenie cox giethner grahmm(you slime) and all bought and paid for congress boys and girls and the other "Real Americans" who have made us the laughing stock of the world in all this.

what a bunch of rubes.
never forget that the law is the last refuge of criminals.

these guys are no more deserving of due process than would be a convicted terrorist for they have convicted themselves by their admitted actions and have done much more damage and they KNEW it at the time!

For the non us citizens well we have rendition right,many on here support that for untried and only suspected criminals, well , now is the time to fire up the G5, go git 'em throw them in Gitmo or Leavenworth and we can get them to trial in 5-6 years and sort it out.

[ddog]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here, the 9/11 commission stated that all asumptions the Bush Administations based the need to invade Iraq about Saddam's WMD programs were "substantiated by Intelligence". After the multitude of Terrorist attacks culminating with 9/11, President Bush decided the US could no longer take that chance. That's not to say the intel was perfect, but the attack was supported by intel at the time. The intel community failed, but even so, consider for a moment the prospects of allowing Saddam to stay in power. He openly admitted that he would pursue WMD's. How long would it be before he succeeded. Eventually he would have reconstructed his WMD program or just bought what he wanted from Syria. Then where would we be??


In the meantime, thousands if not millions of innocent people would have been murdered, economic sanctions would not have prevented that.


all of this is circle jerk maximus --- it all rests on the intell being "cooked".

If you think that is possible (it is) and likely(i do) then everything that flows from that is rotten based on the intel.

To say that the intel community failed is a joke.

Nobody out here knows that including the 9/11 commission and if the goal was to go in then if didn't fail , but was subverted.

If bush/cheney believed that Saddam was a threat at a gut level(the prez always prided himself on trust the gut) then if they helped or looked the other way while the intel was being cooked (not the first time a gvt would do that) then what flows is evil.

Of course , even if the means were evil doesn't mean the ends will be.



"He openly admitted that he would pursue WMD's. How long would it be before he succeeded. Eventually he would have reconstructed his WMD program or just bought what he wanted from Syria. Then where would we be??"


and this is just fluff he had been saying this for years and years.
he didn't have it then and there is no way to know he would have ever gotten it.
i suspect that at some point we would just as likely been able to make a stronger case that he was re-doing the programs.
regardless of the "common" view, you can't do massive stuff in total secret.

You seem to forget that the Irainians and others would not want HIM to have them.
There are always boogy men you can conjure up hiding under the bed.

If you are going to conduct policy based on that then goodbye.

others play at that as well.

[ddog]

Here's a poll for ya......

Who has cost this country more money?
1. Bernie
2. Osama
3. Obama
4. Your momma



all alone and a runaway winner bush/graham/paulson/clinton/rubin.

and now taking victory laps and signing autographs for their many many criminal co---err fans.

[ddog]

QUOTE=slewis]Although AIG was a triple AAA rated credit risk from an insurance perspective, they were never a good name from an Investment Bank prospective. When I was in the derivatives market, it was brutal trying to get stuff done with them, and the longer the contracts settle date, the worse.
Some types of derivatives settle years down the road, but it was tough going past 6 months with them.
That's why the other investment banks, like Goldman, had so much exposure, they proabably extended the recommended lines issued by their credit dept 10 fold.
Almost backfired in their face, big time.

I doubt VERY much the traders are doing anything at AIG regarding spec of new positions.... they have to be a pretty toxic name right now.
I would bet many traders are telling brokers "Dont even show my prices to AIG", it's a waste of time.[/QUOTE]


s,

you know something I wonder about is that back in the day when GS was looking at merger with AIG they backed out because they couldn't figure out what was going on under the hood. That was what I recall anyway.
I was reminded of it from a comment from E.spitzer the other day.

I wonder given that , how GS could not have known that the "bets" they were making were not likely bad? so, given that , they must have felt they could be made whole via some other means, US GVT?

I still would like to see the transcripts and/or testimony UNDER oath from all involved in the whole bail out deal and what did they know or think they knew at the time in relation to all the counterparties and the hole that needed to be filled in to keep them alive.


As to some of these banks now coming out and saying they are profitable, was that due to the bail of AIG in some cases?

I have to think yes. What would citi or gs look like if those bets were not being payed off?

Also, why in the name of rationality are we paying these AIG deals off at 100%? I think that's the case.

For goodness sake , they are shorting AGAINST our interests all the mbs ,etc markets that we are trying to prop up via all the crazy FEd and other stuff.

I don't get it, or maybe I do and can't stand the stench.

:eek:

[Marshall Bennett]

ddog , of course contracts can be challenged in a court . To modify or change the terms of one is another matter . I still maintain that if the beneficiaries of these contracts fully played to all their obligations , and unless they were a part of drawing up those terms that may have been in conflict with the best interest of AIG ( that would be difficult to prove I might add ) , I see no lawful means of reversing those bonuses . I hate it as much as anyone else that taxpayers are the ultimate victims here , but how far do you go before your not only voiding a contract , but infringing on the laws set up to protect those contracts ?

[ddog]

there is NOTHING un american about challenging any contract in court!

I repeat NOTHING!!!!!!

you can "maintain" all you wish to, but the only way to know is to get them under oath and see what the duties were and if those duties were normal and proper.

I can draw up a contract to pay myself and my team if the sun rises on Friday and we can get that signed and then attempt to pay it out.

But, that could be challenged by the shareholders and quashed.


the contracts were not drawn up by COngress as i understood it?

The congress part is that there was a modification to a bail bill that was put forward to NOT allow these types of bonus and THAT was dropped in conference, where all the real goodies are paid off and the criminal stuff is done and now it seems nobody knows why that was pulled , thus the bonus money went out out.

Correct me , i have not been following the story close enough to say that for sure, but at that time those were the facts.

this bonus stuff was put in as hush money and because that's the way it always works, they just never see the light of day in normal times.




:(

[Tom]

And, congress - Dodd - specifically wrote into the law to ALLOW BONUSES.
Might that have anything to do with the $100 grand Dodd got from AIG?

BTW, is Dodd returnig that money? :lol:

[ddog]

And, congress - Dodd - specifically wrote into the law to ALLOW BONUSES.
Might that have anything to do with the $100 grand Dodd got from AIG?

BTW, is Dodd returnig that money? :lol:


i am willing to bet on little info that once or if this ever comes out , that the fed and treasury were behind it since the one group they are concerned with is the big financials.

as is dodd , but even a fool like he would know it could be hot oil and feathers for him if he got pinned with it.

want to bet?

[Marshall Bennett]

Don't know where you found in any of my post that I said it was unamerican to challenge a contract . It happens all the time . I beleive if there is doubt to the validity of a contract it should be contested . I'm only saying that if the employees were playing fairly ( which we don't know ) , to tear up a contract simply because the funds came from a govt. bailout at taxpayer's expense is unlawful , plain & simple . Perhaps in the future specific terms to the division of a bailout should be set forth . Until then , nothing forbids them from using the money as toilet paper if they want to . Perhaps Obama & Co. shouldn't throw around our trillions so wrecklessly .

[DJofSD]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AIG-CEO-says-employees-apf-14680588.html

[ArlJim78]

more theatre of the absurd. these politicians are only too happy to have someone to target their rage on. they're happy as long as they can find enough suckers that think the problem is with Wall Street and keep the attention off of themselves. too bad more people can't put the pieces together and see who the real criminals are.

edit:
ABC News' Jonathan Karl (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=127047) reports: During late-night, closed-door talks last month, negotiators for the House, Senate and White House stripped out a measure to the stimulus bill that could have restricted the AIG bonuses.

Here's the story:

Last month, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment to the stimulus bill aimed at restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds. The measure, which was drafted by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., applied these restrictions retroactively to bonuses received or promised in 2008 and onward.

But then...

The provision was stripped out during the closed-door conference negotiations involving House and Senate leaders and the White House. A measure by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., to limit executive compensation replaced it. But Dodd's measure explicitly exempted bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill.

[ddog]

Don't know where you found in any of my post that I said it was unamerican to challenge a contract . It happens all the time . I beleive if there is doubt to the validity of a contract it should be contested . I'm only saying that if the employees were playing fairly ( which we don't know ) , to tear up a contract simply because the funds came from a govt. bailout at taxpayer's expense is unlawful , plain & simple . Perhaps in the future specific terms to the division of a bailout should be set forth . Until then , nothing forbids them from using the money as toilet paper if they want to . Perhaps Obama & Co. shouldn't throw around our trillions so wrecklessly .


you seemed to imply that the matter should be closed,and that it was not the american way to take this matter to court??? NO???
They did their duty they should get the money and run.

that seems to cover it if i got your gist.

of course the throwing money around applies to the previous bail outers in chief as well, these clowns are now committed to the course that the previous admin embarked on.


I am still willing to put up the bet, the fed had these taken out via some flunky and/or they and treas came to dodd or whomever and said we must not harm these institutions , they must not fail at all costs , just as the fed and treas have said in public and of course it's such a small amount and it's done all the time and we are beholden to these people for our very nation so the bonus MUST go forward , god forbid one of these clowns leaves and spills the beans on the corruption at the core of the place.

then what will we do , who would we blame, what other former current gvt official or other "importance" behind some of these deals that are being paid off may be exposed.

Those of you who think these congress idiots are master minding this, where is the MIND part coming from , dodd - frank, you have to be kidding. they are children they are being spoon fed.

they are puppets just as turbo timmy is as well.

of course you are to look at congress blaming everyone else for the problem and all the while FOLLOW the real big money.

Is it 100k to doddly or whatever, of course not.
As in all scams keep your eye on the MONEY BALL, the BIG BALL, that's where you will find the action and those who are setting the agenda.

They know they can use their media flaks to get out any message they need to color the debates and direct the fingers. They have them in their pockets , they can't exist by not pleasing their boss and thus their ad buyers.

Can Dodd or frank marshall that resource, nope.

You see when you accept media stories from anyone at face value that's coming from a whore all of them must be , they wish to be paid and will crawl into any gutter to get a buck.

and by the way , what the FED is doing is 100X worse than any of this junk.

they are setting the stage for your ultimate crash, i hope i am in the great beyond before it comes and it is coming.

[delayjf]

all of this is circle jerk maximus --- it all rests on the intell being "cooked".
Again, without a Top Secret clearance - you are in no position to make that judgement.
and this is just fluff he had been saying this for years and years.
he didn't have it then and there is no way to know he would have ever gotten it.
i suspect that at some point we would just as likely been able to make a stronger case that he was re-doing the programs.
You seem to forget that the Irainians and others would not want HIM to have them. If you are going to conduct policy based on that then goodbye.
You forget the lessons of WWII. We know for sure he wanted to reconstruct his WMD programs, you maybe willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but I would not. If you are under the impression that US intelligence is omnipotent, you are wrong. Recent intell estimates (IE) indicate we were several years behind with regards to Iran and their nuclear program.
regardless of the "common" view, you can't do massive stuff in total secret.
Without someone being willing to insure he doesn't aquire WMDs, Saddam wouldn't have to rebuilt in total secret. Hitler's rearming was no secret, yet it went unabaded and resulted in WWII. Syria's WMD program was ahead and more robust than US intel reports indicated.
There are always boogy men you can conjure up hiding under the bed.
Tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians.

[JustRalph]

lBUVNQdC4vg

[slewis]

Slewis, everything you say is hindsight. The President has to act on what he knows at the time. Worlwide intel said Saddam was working on Nukes. Let's say Bush did nothing and Saddam hit us with a "dirty" bomb. Then hindsight guys like you would be screaming that Bush had the intel why didn't he do something?
Also the Bush knew that Saddam was funding terrorists. AND, we did find 2 tons of enriched uranium. What do you think Saddam was going to do with that?

Your "if" statement is unrealistic. Keep in mind your not talking to a naive high school student. The difficulties envolved in massing and delivering such a "dirty bomb" was decades away. He couldn't even effectively deliver chemical weapons in either war against our troops and put up as much resistance as your local boy scout troop.
If you choose to continue to defend what Bush did, why stop at Iraq? There are much greater threats. Why not invade everyone who seeks nuclear technology?
The worst part about the Iraq situation NOW is, Lefty, and dont dare f--in deny this, THESE PEOPLE STILL HATE US. So what did you solve???
I've argued before that if you were going in there, even under the rouse of a WMD threat. Do the job right and turn it into another Israel, or DONT GO IN AT ALL.

[slewis]

QUOTE=slewis]Although AIG was a triple AAA rated credit risk from an insurance perspective, they were never a good name from an Investment Bank prospective. When I was in the derivatives market, it was brutal trying to get stuff done with them, and the longer the contracts settle date, the worse.
Some types of derivatives settle years down the road, but it was tough going past 6 months with them.
That's why the other investment banks, like Goldman, had so much exposure, they proabably extended the recommended lines issued by their credit dept 10 fold.
Almost backfired in their face, big time.

I doubt VERY much the traders are doing anything at AIG regarding spec of new positions.... they have to be a pretty toxic name right now.
I would bet many traders are telling brokers "Dont even show my prices to AIG", it's a waste of time.


s,

you know something I wonder about is that back in the day when GS was looking at merger with AIG they backed out because they couldn't figure out what was going on under the hood. That was what I recall anyway.
I was reminded of it from a comment from E.spitzer the other day.

I wonder given that , how GS could not have known that the "bets" they were making were not likely bad? so, given that , they must have felt they could be made whole via some other means, US GVT?

I still would like to see the transcripts and/or testimony UNDER oath from all involved in the whole bail out deal and what did they know or think they knew at the time in relation to all the counterparties and the hole that needed to be filled in to keep them alive.


As to some of these banks now coming out and saying they are profitable, was that due to the bail of AIG in some cases?

I have to think yes. What would citi or gs look like if those bets were not being payed off?

Also, why in the name of rationality are we paying these AIG deals off at 100%? I think that's the case.

For goodness sake , they are shorting AGAINST our interests all the mbs ,etc markets that we are trying to prop up via all the crazy FEd and other stuff.

I don't get it, or maybe I do and can't stand the stench.

:eek:[/QUOTE]

Dog,

I think my, and maybe yours too, worst fears have risen to a new high.

Everyone is in on the game, everyone is on the take. Im watching Dodd backpeddle, Geitner changing stories, and Obama administration wont have any defense or excuses.
These guys have taken the cheating too far......

I could just imagine how the negotiating goes .. something like this:

"Mr Dodd, Mr Geitner, Mr Obama.... you WILL include theses contractual obligations, you WILL pay us in full and in turn we WILL contribute to your political future.
Cut us out, and you'll be depending on Joe The Plumber for his $50.00 political contributions in future elections"

[slewis]

Quote:


In the meantime, thousands if not millions of innocent people would have been murdered, economic sanctions would not have prevented that.
[/QUOTE]


Delay,

I hate to say this.... we aint the big Lion in the jungle anymore.

We can't solve the worlds problems because we cant even solve our own.

Want to know what chance the people of Darfur have for a future?
Answer:
If we get our act together and our citizens prosper, they have a chance for help, if not, they're going to be on their own.
If I ran things and I had to make the choice of sending an American kid to college or sending aid to a foreign entity, guess what I'd do?
I'm tired of kissing up to countries like China who are just beating us at our own game. They've flown by us like we're a cheap claimer running in a stake race, and we continue to transfer assets out of this country and into their Communist playpen.
Case closed.

[skate]

Sure sure sure, how else does BO end up with 150 million camping money, IN ONE MONTH


Reporter, this morning, ask BO$ about the $102 thousand he received from aig, never got the answer;)

but i will say this, let them keep the money for economic stimulent

[ddog]

Again, without a Top Secret clearance - you are in no position to make that judgement.

You forget the lessons of WWII. We know for sure he wanted to reconstruct his WMD programs, you maybe willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but I would not. If you are under the impression that US intelligence is omnipotent, you are wrong. Recent intell estimates (IE) indicate we were several years behind with regards to Iran and their nuclear program.

Without someone being willing to insure he doesn't aquire WMDs, Saddam wouldn't have to rebuilt in total secret. Hitler's rearming was no secret, yet it went unabaded and resulted in WWII. Syria's WMD program was ahead and more robust than US intel reports indicated.

Tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians.


i am saying that WITH a top secret clearance you don't know it.

I am saying that the whole thing rests on the intel.

if you think that was cooked then it's really a bogus deal, I do the more time passes.

You don't , fine.
But your case is no better and in the absence of usage of those weapons and under the apparent view that one can snap your fingers and have a nuke or dirty bomb and given the stated desire of many to obtain one , then where are they now, why no use if so easy(not!) to obtain?

You guys will never even entertain the option that you were played and nudged into this for unholy reasons, so be it.

TPTB wish to remain TPTB , normally that doesn't jive with giving wmd to unstable nutsos who you can't control, or being hung out on the end of actions that even if you deny will lead to your ouster as any attack on the US would. Hard to argue that eh, since it did in fact happen that way.



the kurds, you really think it matters if he wiped out the whole lot?

be careful how you reply since there are many others of exactly the same stripe that then have a moral claim to your military heroics.god help you if yes. you doom your country to endless war.

One thing is certain about endless war, you will give up more and more of your choices and freedoms over time.

tell that to the kurds, see if they give a shite. the Irainians , don't bother i guess we know their stated position. :bang:

[Greyfox]

Fannie plans bonuses of $1M for 4 execs

Fannie Mae plans bonuses of $1M for top executives; Freddie Mac has similar plans

Alan Zibel, AP Real Estate Writer
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-plans-bonuses-of-up-to-apf-14679491.html

[Lefty]

slewis, it's unrealistic tou you because you don't want to admit that Bush was right. How do you know they hate us. Some do, for sure, but many of those that voted prob thank heaven for us. But what did we solve? We prevented another 9-11.
But now that Obama is dismantling the Bush safwguards, brace yourself.

[slewis]

slewis, it's unrealistic tou you because you don't want to admit that Bush was right. How do you know they hate us. Some do, for sure, but many of those that voted prob thank heaven for us. But what did we solve? We prevented another 9-11.
But now that Obama is dismantling the Bush safwguards, brace yourself.

Dont tell me what I want to admit or not. Im not a democrat or republican. I dont see the world one way like you do. I seek truth and honor. Dont give me shit and say "how do you know they dont like us" what f-in planet are you on?
Think they like us?? Id like to see you and Tom go for a little stroll down a few streets in Iraq without a military escort..

It would be...bye bye Lefty... but oh, "they like us", get real. This will come back to haunt us some day.

You'd better replace the word "some" with "most", as in 98%.
The other 2% are being paid to behave with US taxpayer dollars, something I've never heard of in Military history. What a laughing stock we've become.
Look, I know it's not politically correct to go in and wipe the mass population out and really turn it into a democracy.. bringing them to their knees like we did in Japan...THATS WHY WE SHOULD NEVER GO ANYWHERE UNLESS WE ARE WILLING TO DO THAT. War is not pretty.
Describing Iraq as "on their way to a democracy" is like spitting on the graves of every soldier who gave his life fighting for REAL democracy.
Guys like Gen Patton must be doing s'saults in their graves, probably making the worms dizzy.

[Lefty]

I'm a conservative and as such I have a set of values. I blve in defending this country against all enemies and Bush did a good job of that. To say, Iraq is deoes not have a better chance of democracy than ever in history, now THAT's spitting on the graves of our brave military who fought so valiently.
Notice how I did not have to use one curse word to convey my thoughts.

My values are defense of country, low taxes that create opportunity for all, and the right to life.

[Tom]

And then we have the other end of the scale - the bitch Pelosi, calling ILLEGAL ALIENS patriotic, the idiot Obummer wanting to deal with the Taliban, and Dodd, lying thrugh his teeth every day.

The trash is piling up in DC.....time for a house cleaning.

[slewis]

I'm a conservative and as such I have a set of values. I blve in defending this country against all enemies and Bush did a good job of that. To say, Iraq is deoes not have a better chance of democracy than ever in history, now THAT's spitting on the graves of our brave military who fought so valiently.
Notice how I did not have to use one curse word to convey my thoughts.

My values are defense of country, low taxes that create opportunity for all, and the right to life.


Great, so we have similar views of love of the country, just slighly different views on certain issues. I will argue that we do have low taxes. We have a higher tax burden on corporations, and a sliding scale on income, but in return, have NO VAT tax, (or consupmtion tax), a tax that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor.
Money has to be generated somehow for Govt, but we will both agree there is incompetance and waste in ours, regardless of which party is running the show.

thanks for the reply.

[slewis]

And then we have the other end of the scale - the bitch Pelosi, calling ILLEGAL ALIENS patriotic, the idiot Obummer wanting to deal with the Taliban, and Dodd, lying thrugh his teeth every day.

The trash is piling up in DC.....time for a house cleaning.

Tom,

On this one Im all with you. Dodd should resign, not just because he helped sneak this AIG crap through, simply because he got caught in a bumbling lie and is trying to cover his tracks.
This administration is losing credibility quicky.

[Tom]

To many of us, the administration never had any credibility.

What is really disturbing is how many citizens are so damn stupid and gullible.
I do not think America can ever be saved as long as we keep the moron block as part of it. Time to dissolve the union and make a new one, much smaller, without all the anchors. Face it, 40% of the people here do not deserve freedom. and I do not want to be bothered with their welfare.

This group called all the pork chump change and now an amount drastically smaller than that is considered the end of the earth!

It is a diversion to keep the average idiot in line, mad at someone else, while real crap goes on. Why is all this money being funneled through AIG to other countries? Who is overseeing AIG? That POS FOOL Geitner cannot answer that question. He is a tax cheat and a moron.......he is OBama's Brownie ( yer doing a hell of a job, Brownie!)

[slewis]

Tom,


You've brought up the "funneled to other countries" issue before.

Maybe I can clarify what this means.

Say it was legal for you to bet through any betting shop in the world, and some offered less takeout then others. You set up an account and do business "in good faith", throgh a company based in England, a good bus partner of the US. Now through some bad bus. decisions, the place you bet through goes belly up. Dont you deserve you're money?

In the international banking business, there are no regulations. The ONLY thing a bank in Switzerland (like UBS) has to go on when it deals with an AIG (or Chase, or a Jap bank) is "good faith".. that if AIG (or Chase, or Sumitomo, or Dresdner) decide they are not going to pay, their reputation makes them HISTORY FOREVER, and no one will ever deal with them.
So it is imperitive ALL institutions live up to their good faith obligations.
NO world financial institution would allow this (to default), and countries cant let institutions home based in their countries (AIG/USA) to allow it either.
When banks wont trade with each other, the world banking market will crash causing a global depression and possibly world war.
I used to exchange literally 100,s of billions of currency a day between banks throughout the world in real time, with some trades (bets) not settling for 10 yrs!!!!
So when you read or hear of AIG money going to a foreign institution, it's because that foreign bank traded or did a contract with AIG and AIG has to fill that obligation. Some of these deals might have actually resulted in net profit, which is not reported by the press.

Hope I cleared some of this stuff up.

[Tom]

So contracts that sent my tax dollars to foreign countries are ok, but contracts made with genuine AMERICANS ( bonuses) are bad???

Sorry, but it is not right. And this is why the smoke screen over 1/10th of 1 percent, far less than the amount of pork. Obummer and his band of thieves and liars KNOW we would not support this crap and are trying to keep it a secret.

Tough titties to Europe - NO TAXPAYER money to them. Ever. Period.
Let AIG fail and let the chips fall where they may. If Europe goes under, so be it.

[DJofSD]

So contracts that sent my tax dollars to foreign countries are ok, but contracts made with genuine AMERICANS ( bonuses) are bad???

Sorry, but it is not right. And this is why the smoke screen over 1/10th of 1 percent, far less than the amount of pork. Obummer and his band of thieves and liars KNOW we would not support this crap and are trying to keep it a secret.

Tough titties to Europe - NO TAXPAYER money to them. Ever. Period.
Let AIG fail and let the chips fall where they may. If Europe goes under, so be it.Wow! That would be some scenario. I would expect the European powers wouldn't like that one little bit. They just might commandeer the oil tankers and hold them ransom.

[ddog]

I'm a conservative and as such I have a set of values. I blve in defending this country against all enemies and Bush did a good job of that. To say, Iraq is deoes not have a better chance of democracy than ever in history, now THAT's spitting on the graves of our brave military who fought so valiently.
Notice how I did not have to use one curse word to convey my thoughts.

My values are defense of country, low taxes that create opportunity for all, and the right to life.

opportunity for ALL, does that mean ALL the WORLD or ALL Americans?

I am in favour of the American part.

If you are going to expand that into a world wide utopia brought about by our blood then you have left American values way way way behind.

That is not our mission or our values or even POSSIBLE.
You will not have low taxes and a solid defense of your country if you subscribe as did the gullible BUSH to the ALL thr WORLD is just America waiting to be set free.

It's foolish , i hope that's not what you meant, but in defending the Bush "elections for all" you sure sound like it.

As to the "they like us" , yeah so much that they wrote an agreement for us to get out of the country by 2011 which of course will not happen because the place will FALL apart and THEY, The Iraqis KNOW it.

We will be there after this generation is dead and buried if we can still afford it.

When does "nation building" and building a democracy stop?

Are not we still working on OURS!!!!!!!!!!!!!


At some point the realist has to take back the policy of this country.

The last several that were in charge of it were child like in their actions.

[ddog]

So contracts that sent my tax dollars to foreign countries are ok, but contracts made with genuine AMERICANS ( bonuses) are bad???

Sorry, but it is not right. And this is why the smoke screen over 1/10th of 1 percent, far less than the amount of pork. Obummer and his band of thieves and liars KNOW we would not support this crap and are trying to keep it a secret.

Tough titties to Europe - NO TAXPAYER money to them. Ever. Period.
Let AIG fail and let the chips fall where they may. If Europe goes under, so be it.



those foreign people and entities you hear a lot about , well in many cases the only foreign part of them is that they are set up over there somewhere.

many of them are the extension of the companies here just setup over there esp. london to avoid the regs that they may not like here.

they can slide the money over there much easier that was and bring back the slice that suits them.

it's a shell game--in many cases we are paying them but them are we with a different accent.

[Tom]

Wow! That would be some scenario. I would expect the European powers wouldn't like that one little bit. They just might commandeer the oil tankers and hold them ransom.

That would be good - we need a good war right now. Dropping a payload on Europe would be, well, invigorating! They get uppity when they don't get conquered every 10 years or so.

[boxcar]

Don't know where you found in any of my post that I said it was unamerican to challenge a contract . It happens all the time . I beleive if there is doubt to the validity of a contract it should be contested . I'm only saying that if the employees were playing fairly ( which we don't know ) , to tear up a contract simply because the funds came from a govt. bailout at taxpayer's expense is unlawful , plain & simple . Perhaps in the future specific terms to the division of a bailout should be set forth . Until then , nothing forbids them from using the money as toilet paper if they want to . Perhaps Obama & Co. shouldn't throw around our trillions so wrecklessly .

Furthermore, does the government have any legal standing to challenge, especially since they're not a party to the contract? And this become even more dubious because these bonuses were part of the bailout bill! It was written in there but because BO and his band of merry crooks were so eager to get this bill passed, no one took the time to read it.

I'm also very uneasy about the government's plan now to levy a very stiff tax on that bonus money. This, too, has to be unconstitutional. Since when can the U.S. government selectively target some group for such punitive action? If this proposal passes the House, this would set a very, very dangerous precedent. The government would be free to use the tax code as a sledge hammer to bludgeon anyone it deemed as "greedy". And herein lies the whole crux of this issue. Not even BO has questioned the legality of these contracts -- and rightfully so because it's unlikely there's anything illegal about them. But what has been first and foremost on his hypocrite's mind is greed -- but "greed" the last time I checked is only illegal in very specific circumstances. (Price gouging during states of emergencies comes immediately to mind, for example.)

Boxcar

[ddog]

Furthermore, does the government have any legal standing to challenge, especially since they're not a party to the contract? And this become even more dubious because these bonuses were part of the bailout bill! It was written in there but because BO and his band of merry crooks were so eager to get this bill passed, no one took the time to read it.

I'm also very uneasy about the government's plan now to levy a very stiff tax on that bonus money. This, too, has to be unconstitutional. Since when can the U.S. government selectively target some group for such punitive action? If this proposal passes the House, this would set a very, very dangerous precedent. The government would be free to use the tax code as a sledge hammer to bludgeon anyone it deemed as "greedy". And herein lies the whole crux of this issue. Not even BO has questioned the legality of these contracts -- and rightfully so because it's unlikely there's anything illegal about them. But what has been first and foremost on his hypocrite's mind is greed -- but "greed" the last time I checked is only illegal in very specific circumstances. (Price gouging during states of emergencies comes immediately to mind, for example.)

Boxcar


i suspect the gvt would not be challenging-- AIG would be the challenger at the behest of the gvt , actually the fed which is even worse since they are running the show , not bama or the treas. That the Fed is running it is clear as Liddy said that the admin wasn't even in the room during the meetings and that he didn't think they were normally informed of the contents , he even asked if he should inform the Treas and was told I believe that it was not needed!

Now that's fascist all the way , true unelected officials (the fed) a private firm actually running the bail out without bama or the treas in this case even in the loop it would seem if you believe Liddy.

Now that the comp has been PAID i am all in favour of it being left alone.
Let the COngress make it up out of their salary if they are so concerned.
It is also fair to ASK for it back.

BUT and there is a BUT, in public corp "the bonus money" is normally , not allways , but normally defined as "at risk comp" and can be rescinded cancelled modified before it is PAID and even if a CONTRACT existed to the opposite intent THAT WAS FULLFILLED.

You can certainly find proof easily if you want to search it out.

[ddog]

That would be good - we need a good war right now. Dropping a payload on Europe would be, well, invigorating! They get uppity when they don't get conquered every 10 years or so.


when this type of stuff happens you have every chance of getting your war.
maybe not with europe.

got your popcorn ready?

[Tom]

If we have a war at home, I won't be eating popcorn - I will leading the attack on DC...I gots a real itch to get me some libs. :mad::D

[Greyfox]

Who else is culpable? Yes Dodd lied. But he had help. Try these names.

See this article:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12313

"Senator Dodd has included language in the stimulus bill that would have retroactively blocked excessive compensation for employees at financial institutions receiving federal bailout money. However, at the request of the Treasury Department and the Obama administration, that language was stripped during the conference session. Senator Dodd was not in the conference session, but the following ten people were (http://conservativereview.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/list-of-conferees-and-staff-for-stimulus-bill/):

Senate:
Harry Reid D
Max Baucus D
Daniel Inouye D
Charles Grassley R
Thad Cochran R

House:
Dave Obey Wisconsin D
Charles Rangel NY D
Henry Waxman Calif D
Jerry Lewis Calif R
Dave Camp Michigan R

[mostpost]

From Boxcar

I'm also very uneasy about the government's plan now to levy a very stiff tax on that bonus money. This, too, has to be unconstitutional. Since when can the U.S. government selectively target some group for such punitive action? If this proposal passes the House, this would set a very, very dangerous precedent. The government would be free to use the tax code as a sledge hammer to bludgeon anyone it deemed as "greedy". And herein lies the whole crux of this issue. Not even BO has questioned the legality of these contracts -- and rightfully so because it's unlikely there's anything illegal about them. But what has been first and foremost on his hypocrite's mind is greed -- but "greed" the last time I checked is only illegal in very specific circumstances. (Price gouging during states of emergencies comes immediately to mind, for example.)


You are correct. (Bet you never thought you'd hear me say that.) It's called a Bill of Attainder. Which means you can't pass a law to punish a person or group of persons for doing something that was not illegal before the law was passed. I would like to get the money back, but this is not the way to do it.

[mostpost]

If we have a war at home, I won't be eating popcorn - I will leading the attack on DC...I gots a real itch to get me some libs. :mad::D

Hey Tom,
Having seen a few pictures of you at Saratoga, I'm hoping DC is only about 25 feet from your Bacalounger.

Signed,
Another "Not so thin" guy;) :D

[dutchboy]

Since they now have all of the news sources spending most of their time covering AIG it seems to leave a big opportunity for the rascals in the government to do as they please and no one will realize it until it is too late.

Reminds me of a training class where they explained that if someone complains or reports a fellow employee for misdeeds the person who reported it may be up to no good but is trying to redirect attention away from themselves.

[DJofSD]

Who else is culpable? Yes Dodd lied. But he had help. Try these names.

See this article:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=12313

"Senator Dodd has included language in the stimulus bill that would have retroactively blocked excessive compensation for employees at financial institutions receiving federal bailout money. However, at the request of the Treasury Department and the Obama administration, that language was stripped during the conference session. Senator Dodd was not in the conference session, but the following ten people were (http://conservativereview.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/list-of-conferees-and-staff-for-stimulus-bill/):

Senate:
Harry Reid D
Max Baucus D
Daniel Inouye D
Charles Grassley R
Thad Cochran R

House:
Dave Obey Wisconsin D
Charles Rangel NY D
Henry Waxman Calif D
Jerry Lewis Calif R
Dave Camp Michigan R
Congress is in essence the BoD of AIG. They are not acting like members of the board. The are acting more like corporate raiders more interested in talking down the percieved worth of the company so they can break it apart to sell off the pieces for a profit. And after we've pored trillion's of dollars into proping up the company.

And here we have this list of duplicitous members of Congress more interested in covering their behinds than doing what is best for the long term of AIG, the economy and the US taxpayer. You claw back those retention bonuses and you will have so many unintended consequences, you'll wish you had not done it in the first place.

[slewis]

From Boxcar

I'm also very uneasy about the government's plan now to levy a very stiff tax on that bonus money. This, too, has to be unconstitutional. Since when can the U.S. government selectively target some group for such punitive action? If this proposal passes the House, this would set a very, very dangerous precedent. The government would be free to use the tax code as a sledge hammer to bludgeon anyone it deemed as "greedy". And herein lies the whole crux of this issue. Not even BO has questioned the legality of these contracts -- and rightfully so because it's unlikely there's anything illegal about them. But what has been first and foremost on his hypocrite's mind is greed -- but "greed" the last time I checked is only illegal in very specific circumstances. (Price gouging during states of emergencies comes immediately to mind, for example.)


You are correct. (Bet you never thought you'd hear me say that.) It's called a Bill of Attainder. Which means you can't pass a law to punish a person or group of persons for doing something that was not illegal before the law was passed. I would like to get the money back, but this is not the way to do it.

They're not being punished, they're being taxed. Big difference.
They did nothing illegal.

There will certainly be law suits unless this is all grandstanding because the media reported on it and the public is going nuts.
I would bet deals are going to be cut.

Dont be surprised if the money is taxed or returned and down the road those who had to give the money back will get that compensation returned quietly, without the public knowing.

[ArlJim78]

Right on Thaddeus!

gTVTgxLo0V8

[DJofSD]

Right on!

It's a comedy of errors. And it's like telling a lie -- you end up having to tell more and more of them just to stay ahead of the curve.

Screw the congress. I can't blame Wall Street, they being true to their nature -- making money. But the failure of the regulators along with the short-sighted nature of Congress and the complicitous administrations -- notice I used a plural -- just makes me more and more angry. Come April 15, I'm damn well going to be at a tea party along with my 9 1/2 year old son. This will be a teaching moment for me. And I will be damned if I let him grow up to be a liberal and a democrat.

[ddog]

does Geithner retire for health reasons by the end of the year?

given bama propensity for toss 'em under da bus , is he toast?

when the next outrage comes out and it will can he survive?

these bonus tricks will be as nothing -- there is a wave of fraud that was done in 2008 that has not shaken out , it will top all you have seen so far.

there is at least another 2-3 trillion best case that will be asked for before the end of this year.

will J6P just smile and lube up??

it is heating up ......buy extra popcorn this is a triple feature, at least.

[DJofSD]

Ya, I'm kind of wondering of the BO endorsement of him isn't going to be like the Bush vote of confidence -- the K. o. D.

[hcap]

If we have a war at home, I won't be eating popcorn - I will leading the attack on DC...I gots a real itch to get me some libs. :mad::D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Better work yourself into shape first Tom. Huffing and puffing while waddling into DC hurling pages of the Turner Diaries at in shape libs is not exactly a fearsome image. Probably scares you tho'

[ddog]

i am going to stick up for tom (just this once) sight unseen,i bet he can run down blarney frank and criminal chris dodd.

if not just scatter a couple of bucks on the ground and the pigs will come a runnin.


:lol:

speaking of pigs, your favorite GSE , fannie and freddir are about ready to cut their set of bonus checks to keep their "key" people running the money pits at their outfits.

You know, when people say we need to pay retention bonuses to keep the experts on the job , then i have to say, maybe with experts like these who exactly are the incompetents?

Of course if we want this stuff to go private(we do right) then let the experts go to a private firm and take their book with them.

sounds like a winner to me.

[mostpost]

They're not being punished, they're being taxed. Big difference.

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy" McCullough v. Maryland
or in this case "to punish"


They did nothing illegal.
I agree. Which is why this would be a Bill of Attainder. Not illegal then; illegal now...
Understand that I think they should NOT be allowed to keep this bonus money; I just don't know how to get it back. Maybe we could hold them upside down by the ankles and shake 'til $165 Mil falls out!

[mostpost]

I thought Republicans were against raising tax rates. Yet half the Republicans in the house voted to raise the top marginal tax rate 54 points. :eek: :eek:

[ddog]

They're not being punished, they're being taxed. Big difference.

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy" McCullough v. Maryland
or in this case "to punish"


They did nothing illegal.
I agree. Which is why this would be a Bill of Attainder. Not illegal then; illegal now...
Understand that I think they should NOT be allowed to keep this bonus money; I just don't know how to get it back. Maybe we could hold them upside down by the ankles and shake 'til $165 Mil falls out!

i am SURE under current law there is a case that could be brought.
if such a case were brought and a jury trial was in the offing, then the case would never go to trial, they would give the money back as the lawyers would get it and the odds are they would lose.

in fact i predict they would not want to go through discovery. :eek:

that's the way we roll in the us of a boys.

[Relwob Owner]

They're not being punished, they're being taxed. Big difference.

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy" McCullough v. Maryland
or in this case "to punish"


They did nothing illegal.
I agree. Which is why this would be a Bill of Attainder. Not illegal then; illegal now...
Understand that I think they should NOT be allowed to keep this bonus money; I just don't know how to get it back. Maybe we could hold them upside down by the ankles and shake 'til $165 Mil falls out!


I know I am in the minority here but if I was one of the employees, I dont know if I would return a dime....the pay plan was agreed to in early 2008, i think and there is nothing that says the company has to do well for them to get paid. If they have to give the money back, then shouldnt every CEO who made a ton while their company was going down the toilet,

People in all sorts of jobs make a ton of dough while the overall bottom line is hurting.....this sets a really bad precedent-should the govt go after people at failing banks that did their jobs while the banks failed on the whole?

I see both sides but am scared to death that the House was able to get a bill going so quickly to tax the money.....scary, scary, scary


Barack and his crew are starting to remind me of the same CEO types who brought so many companies down.....

[Shemp Howard]

To quote our fearless Commander in Chief why don't we just consider this "last year's business"


:confused:

[Tom]

I thought Republicans were against raising tax rates. Yet half the Republicans in the house voted to raise the top marginal tax rate 54 points. :eek: :eek:

Half the republicans in the house are democrats. :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Better work yourself into shape first Tom. Huffing and puffing while waddling into DC hurling pages of the Turner Diaries at in shape libs is not exactly a fearsome image. Probably scares you tho'In shape libs? You mean like Michael Moore? That kind of in-shape lib?

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/michael-moore-1.jpg

[Lefty]

Its conservatives who rebel against raising tax rates, not R's in general.

[slewis]

I know I am in the minority here but if I was one of the employees, I dont know if I would return a dime....the pay plan was agreed to in early 2008, i think and there is nothing that says the company has to do well for them to get paid. If they have to give the money back, then shouldnt every CEO who made a ton while their company was going down the toilet,

People in all sorts of jobs make a ton of dough while the overall bottom line is hurting.....this sets a really bad precedent-should the govt go after people at failing banks that did their jobs while the banks failed on the whole?

I see both sides but am scared to death that the House was able to get a bill going so quickly to tax the money.....scary, scary, scary


Barack and his crew are starting to remind me of the same CEO types who brought so many companies down.....

Relwob,

You make some very very good points... but you know why I think that if they litigate they will lose?? (the Aig employees)

If a company is doing badly, very badly, yes CEO's and upper management will often continue to do well, especially if they had performed in the past.

A private owner, or a group of Bd of Directors, will expect management to make necessary changes to turn the company around. If that company remains in business, ALL employment contracts must be honored, but there's a caveat in this case....

If things get so severe, the company files for bankruptcy or goes completely under (like Circuit City). Contractual employees would get NO future earnings and only paid for competed employment after the bankruptcy court settles up.

BUT.. in this case... the Govt BAILED OUT AIG... they would have normally gone under... making those contracts probably void. (Remember, we have not seen the contracts). When I worked on Wall st, it was not unusual to get a 2 or 3 yr contract, guaranteeing bonus and salary increases for each yr.
But if the co. goes under, you only get what you worked for. Again we dont know the terms of these contracts, but I think the courts could (and should) rule AGAINST these employee contracts and void them, setting a new precedent.
After all, this is a unique situation.

[Lefty]

I don't see how the contracts can be null and void when specific language was put into the stimulas bill to protect the bonuses and signed into law by Obama himself.

[hcap]

In shape libs? You mean like Michael Moore? That kind of in-shape lib?

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/michael-moore-1.jpg
Tom is talking Tim McVeigh, Turner Diaries, Militias, killing libs and armed insurrection.

He thinks what McVeigh did is good, but choose the wrong target. Maybe another with smaller child care? Michael Moore may be out of shape, but is not calling for anything like Tom's latest idiotic killing rant. Therefore his physical condition is not a prerequisite for "cool" home grown terrorism.

[Relwob Owner]

Relwob,

You make some very very good points... but you know why I think that if they litigate they will lose?? (the Aig employees)

If a company is doing badly, very badly, yes CEO's and upper management will often continue to do well, especially if they had performed in the past.

A private owner, or a group of Bd of Directors, will expect management to make necessary changes to turn the company around. If that company remains in business, ALL employment contracts must be honored, but there's a caveat in this case....

If things get so severe, the company files for bankruptcy or goes completely under (like Circuit City). Contractual employees would get NO future earnings and only paid for competed employment after the bankruptcy court settles up.

BUT.. in this case... the Govt BAILED OUT AIG... they would have normally gone under... making those contracts probably void. (Remember, we have not seen the contracts). When I worked on Wall st, it was not unusual to get a 2 or 3 yr contract, guaranteeing bonus and salary increases for each yr.
But if the co. goes under, you only get what you worked for. Again we dont know the terms of these contracts, but I think the courts could (and should) rule AGAINST these employee contracts and void them, setting a new precedent.
After all, this is a unique situation.

Good point....it is a unique situation indeed and it is amazing how things are changing so fast and how many things that the gov's is doing right now that are making me question things.....life was a lot more simple when all I cared about was where I was going with my buddies that night....:)

Thanks for the info

[Tom]

Clearly, the bill they passed yesterday violates the constitution on two fronts.
And did you hear, they wrote another bonus exception into this one!

[Tom]

Hey hcap...you trying to censor my book list?

BTW......talking on a horse board is a tad different than OBama's friend Bill Ayers....wouldn't you say?

I have ranted, his bud has set of explosives. Just tryingto find common ground with the prez.

[DJofSD]

Clearly, the bill they passed yesterday violates the constitution on two fronts.
And did you hear, they wrote another bonus exception into this one!
Senator Fred Thompson was very clear about the illegality of the bill.

How long will it be after it is signed into law that some organization like the Pacific Law Center will be filing a law suit or injunction?

[lsbets]

If AIG had gone bankrupt, those bonuses would not have been paid. That's how it should have been done, and we could have found another way to keep the financial system afloat. I don't like the bonuses at all, but everyone should be scared to death that this Congress (both parties except for a small few) are willing to single out an individual group of people for punishment via the tax code. That should scare the hell out of everyone. When popular opinion expresses outrage at another group, will Congress target them? I just hope that the Supremes rule it unconstitutional. It would be nice if Obama vetoed it on that basis, but I don't see that happening.

[ezrabrooks]

i am SURE under current law there is a case that could be brought.
if such a case were brought and a jury trial was in the offing, then the case would never go to trial, they would give the money back as the lawyers would get it and the odds are they would lose.

in fact i predict they would not want to go through discovery. :eek:

that's the way we roll in the us of a boys.

Surely the ACLU is ready and willing to fight this Tax injustice.

Ez

[ddog]

Senator Fred Thompson was very clear about the illegality of the bill.

How long will it be after it is signed into law that some organization like the Pacific Law Center will be filing a law suit or injunction?


Not that it really matters in the long run , but if they spread the net wider as I think they may have in the bill, (over a certain family income) and not just aigfp people then freddy better read his paper again.
he may be surprised at how often tax policy is enforced that is retro!

[ddog]

Surely the ACLU is ready and willing to fight this Tax injustice.

Ez


it's interesting , i almost want to see a case brought by AIG to get the money back.

it would be interesting to see who lined up and where.

Of course, AIG is suing the gvt NOW to claim they paid too much tax and they want that back.

Now that's COMEDY right there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


as to letting the thing tank, we don't have the system to handle it.

we were just asleep at the switch for so many years and years due to the whole "regulation" stawman and the party booze was flowing so that when a lawfull way to do what needed to be done for failures of this scope was needed , it was not there.

this was not shutting down Indymac or something like that , this was a 1000X that scope and complexity, there were all kinds of international treaty obligations and free trade stuff , it was a nightmare.

If you want it done according to the law , then you have to have a law to do it that would give you the course and power to do it.

I DO NOT WANT such a law, what I want instead is to make sure that a couple of dozen clowns in a backroom can't MAKE SOMETHING THIS BIG in the first place.

This was exactly like giving a dozen crack-heads the keys to the bank vault and firing the guards and then wondering where all your money and jewels went.

[JustRalph]

This action by Congress is reactionary and illegal.

They voted to allow this shit to go forward. They now squawk like wounded chicks............ LS is right. They should have stayed out of it. They wrote the Stimulus bill. They allowed this.

This action by Congress is the exact reason why the 2nd Amendment was put into the constitution. Congress has turned into a tyrannical government.

Those of you who support this action by Congress should remember, Congress may turn on you next. They are acting as judge jury and punisher in a crime wherein they pieced together the circumstances of the crime, encouraged it, and applauded when it was commited. Now they choose to find the moral high ground and jump on the band wagon of outrage.

They have passed a law that specifically identifies one small group of individuals......... this is what Adams and Jefferson warned against. There is no excuse for Governmental Tyranny............practiced in the name of the people.

[ddog]

sorry but you are not correct depending on the exact "law" that is passed if one ever is.

You are off the rails if you are basing your argument on the "crime" sentiment you seem to imply by your post.

This would not be a criminal statue. civil is the case law i think?

THis is not much, if any, different than requiring a "group" a "small group" a "very small group" to fund cleanups for "toxic wastes"(good fit i think) left over from practices that were not illegal and even not known as toxic at the time the wastes were created.


back to the law lib i think.

we shall see.


p.s. on the populist front, it's amazing to me that people without two cents to rub together(in comparision to some of these "masters") have been so brainwashed that they spout off at the mere thought of them being made to clean up their mess.

Oh, the lamestream media tis a powerful force when you actually think they give a shite other than where the next check is coming from.

:lol:

[slewis]

This action by Congress is reactionary and illegal.

They voted to allow this shit to go forward. They now squawk like wounded chicks............ LS is right. They should have stayed out of it. They wrote the Stimulus bill. They allowed this.

This action by Congress is the exact reason why the 2nd Amendment was put into the constitution. Congress has turned into a tyrannical government.

Those of you who support this action by Congress should remember, Congress may turn on you next. They are acting as judge jury and punisher in a crime wherein they pieced together the circumstances of the crime, encouraged it, and applauded when it was commited. Now they choose to find the moral high ground and jump on the band wagon of outrage.

They have passed a law that specifically identifies one small group of individuals......... this is what Adams and Jefferson warned against. There is no excuse for Governmental Tyranny............practiced in the name of the people.

Yeah Ralph,

Like ..like...like... you mean like those illegal wiretaps to snoop on Americans without accountability??

How would Johnny and Tommy feel about Bushy on that one???

[Boris]

Not that it really matters in the long run , but if they spread the net wider as I think they may have in the bill, (over a certain family income) and not just aigfp people then freddy better read his paper again.
he may be surprised at how often tax policy is enforced that is retro!
With all due respect ddog, I don't "get" a fair number of your posts. I know cryptic is either your style or its just you, but I tend to skip over them for the most part. But, I'm gonna take a swing at this one cause "I think" you made a point I want to expand on.

Looking at the part I bolded, the Law Of Unintended Consequences will find a home in this bill should it ever become law. A front-line manager in a profitable division of one of these banks can make a modest, given their responsibility, salary and a bonus based on several factors including profit of their office. So there will be people out there, not the hated class but good managers, that will be taxed at 90% for running a profitable office. Their deal is structured so that 50-80% of the earnings are bonus based. They may make $100K a year in salary, generate a $5,000,000 profit, and get a $500,000+ bonus. These people exist and have no business being caught in the "net".

Congress needs to stop and wait for a minute. There is no election going on so get out of election mode. Trying to play to the blog-of-the-day with whack a mole policy is deadly.

[slewis]

With all due respect ddog, I don't "get" a fair number of your posts. I know cryptic is either your style or its just you, but I tend to skip over them for the most part. But, I'm gonna take a swing at this one cause "I think" you made a point I want to expand on.

Looking at the part I bolded, the Law Of Unintended Consequences will find a home in this bill should it ever become law. A front-line manager in a profitable division of one of these banks can make a modest, given their responsibility, salary and a bonus based on several factors including profit of their office. So there will be people out there, not the hated class but good managers, that will be taxed at 90% for running a profitable office. Their deal is structured so that 50-80% of the earnings are bonus based. They may make $100K a year in salary, generate a $5,000,000 profit, and get a $500,000+ bonus. These people exist and have no business being caught in the "net".

Congress needs to stop and wait for a minute. There is no election going on so get out of election mode. Trying to play to the blog-of-the-day with whack a mole policy is deadly.

Boris,

If AIG was not bailed out and forced into bankruptcy, it would have been the end of them. Much of a financial services company's assets are it's employees. Im not a backruptcy attorney nor a bankruptcy judge but from what I remember from my Wall st days employees are the first creditors.
But only on work performed and probably salary only, not expected bonuses on profit, because there was no profit, only huge loses. Regardless of whether you work for AIG insurance or AIG financial services, you work for AIG.
This will be debated in court of course and Im curious of the outcome, but, the lawyers who've I asked regarding this issue tell me they would have to see the specific contracts.

[Tom]

Yeah Ralph,

Like ..like...like... you mean like those illegal wiretaps to snoop on Americans without accountability??

How would Johnny and Tommy feel about Bushy on that one???

Wow, talk about being thick!

Listening in on conversations that come from suspected terror nations and blatantly targeting innocent people have zero to do with each other. Here is the difference between Bush and Obama...Bush did what was necessary to protect citizens. Obam does whateve it takes to supress them

BTW, has your new brown shirt from DC arrived yet?

[ddog]

With all due respect ddog, I don't "get" a fair number of your posts. I know cryptic is either your style or its just you, but I tend to skip over them for the most part. But, I'm gonna take a swing at this one cause "I think" you made a point I want to expand on.

Looking at the part I bolded, the Law Of Unintended Consequences will find a home in this bill should it ever become law. A front-line manager in a profitable division of one of these banks can make a modest, given their responsibility, salary and a bonus based on several factors including profit of their office. So there will be people out there, not the hated class but good managers, that will be taxed at 90% for running a profitable office. Their deal is structured so that 50-80% of the earnings are bonus based. They may make $100K a year in salary, generate a $5,000,000 profit, and get a $500,000+ bonus. These people exist and have no business being caught in the "net".

Congress needs to stop and wait for a minute. There is no election going on so get out of election mode. Trying to play to the blog-of-the-day with whack a mole policy is deadly.

Ok, i will try to be clear on the narrow point.

a division is a division for a reason?
well maybe to protect some actions
from what we must ask

now lets say the division was just an org chart deal no scheme intended

as i understand it the bill at this point would ONLY hit those firms that took/asked/needed bail outs from you and me as taxpayers.

without the bailout they would be bust and bonus money , outside of IRON CLAD employment contract language would be toast, normally.

no matter the cubicle that produced profit(?) , cryptic coming here - there are profits and then there are profits , the company itself , especially in AIG case would be consumed , all of it, by the bad actions of the evil division.

SO, no , just because one happened to generate some revenue or book something that they called profits at the time doesn't cut it for me.

You were part of a failed enterprise, sorry that you were clean that's the way the company crumbles.

to my mind this is not an unintended outcome but the only honest one.

otherwise you incent the make a bunch of money quick cash out and to hell with the company.

also at play if we are going to bail with requirements would be the take BK with a strong contract to get the money without the bail,even if a systemic firm would take down the system.

this is why the repeal of the glass/steagall and the regs are always bad crowd is/were nuts.

you really can't let firms get big enough to take risks that can take systems down in the first place.

OR for you confidence is the system freaks, even allow the perception to arise that a bad actor has started the take down.

Finally, every law ever made , every bill ever looked at has unintended consequences attached.

Normally not the ones thought at the time.

[DJofSD]

Argggg. No offense dd but literally parsing and reading the post is difficult. Lynne Truss' book (discussed here) (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1843961) would be of aid.

[ddog]

As to the blog of the day whack a mole, well one could also say that the house is acting as the house was meant to act.

In the moment and to reflect the current attitudes of their voters.
I assure you they are not reading the blogs to find the voters thoughts on this.
They are being accosted on the street and dumped on via mail/phones you name it and they see the handwritting on the wall.
You could just as easily contend that the House in this action is what keeps the pitchforks at bay and thus a good whack of the mole of the moment serves the greater good.

checks and balances, priceless! I love it when some rail about activist courts.

[ddog]

ok

firm = failed
bonus = nope

outcome = tough

lost bonus in past = yes
at fault = i didn't think so
crying towel = not here

outcome = life went on

[slewis]

Wow, talk about being thick!

Listening in on conversations that come from suspected terror nations and blatantly targeting innocent people have zero to do with each other. Here is the difference between Bush and Obama...Bush did what was necessary to protect citizens. Obam does whateve it takes to supress them

BTW, has your new brown shirt from DC arrived yet?

There was a law in place to give them immediate ability to tap, at the discretion and transperancy of a judge.

This way Tommy boy, they could tap your phone, and if your lawyer requested information whether or not your phone was tapped, you couldn't get it. No freedom of info from YOUR govt..
They do whatever they want and tap WHOMEVER they want, and dont have to answer.
Think our founding father's would have gone for that?

Rhetorical, they would not have.
Amazing how those on the right that want to see this country "protected" are willing to put up with KGB tactics to "accomplish" it.

Thick?? ... ummm.

[Tom]

You cannot name anyone who had their rights violated by that. In this case, everyone affected is having their right violated. Everyone of them.

And not everyone agrees that it was illegal anyway. Even Obama.
The Obama Justice Department has adopted a legal stance identical to, if not more aggressive than, the Bush version. It argues that the court-forced disclosure of the surveillance programs would cause "exceptional harm to national security" by exposing intelligence sources and methods. Last Friday the Ninth Circuit denied the latest emergency motion to dismiss, again kicking matters back to Judge Walker.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html

[slewis]

You cannot name anyone who had their rights violated by that. In this case, everyone affected is having their right violated. Everyone of them.

And not everyone agrees that it was illegal anyway. Even Obama.




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html


See,

You're foolishly convinced that I'm pro-Obama, pro Democrat, and I keep trying to tell you I will NEVER see the world or the USA from the left or the right perspective exclusively.
I pick and choose according to what I believe in.
I do so after weighing as much evidence as I can and thinking about my morality and beliefs.
Regarding this particular issue, it's a slam dunk in my book.
No wiretaps without a court order, case closed.

As far as your suggestion that I cant name anyone whose right's have been violated, you'd be surprised at that one too.

You want real national security?? Close the f--in borders and deport illegals and you wont have to worry about a police state.. (which, by the way, you virtually have one now to worry about).
Go and Google names like Checkpoint and Axciom and then let me know if you think our founding fathers would have stood for this crap.

[Tom]

I don't think you are a democrat.
I just think you are nuts. :lol:

[ddog]

you do realize that the 9thcir case was after the gvt settled for 2mill!!!!.

why do i think rights were violated in the very case you posted???


those that scream about bill of attainder , when you grant the gvt any gvt the right to target anyone and everyone for anything and everything and not have to disclose what they are using against you using the oldest excuse in the book and the first one every tyrant uses then all the other rights really don't mean much.

[ArlJim78]

thinking about how our US congress acted this week, I think in my lifetime it's a low point. a feeding frenzy of misdirected anger, immoral legislation, and outrageous outrage. both parties had a hand in it too. an absolute embarrassment.

in my dreams 3/4 of them get thrown out next time.

[slewis]

you do realize that the 9thcir case was after the gvt settled for 2mill!!!!.

why do i think rights were violated in the very case you posted???


those that scream about bill of attainder , when you grant the gvt any gvt the right to target anyone and everyone for anything and everything and not have to disclose what they are using against you using the oldest excuse in the book and the first one every tyrant uses then all the other rights really don't mean much.

:ThmbUp:

But of course, what do I know, Im nuts..:lol:

[ddog]

thinking about how our US congress acted this week, I think in my lifetime it's a low point. a feeding frenzy of misdirected anger, immoral legislation, and outrageous outrage. both parties had a hand in it too. an absolute embarrassment.

in my dreams 3/4 of them get thrown out next time.


actually in this case it's a fairness deal.
most people don't get mad if someone works or gets lucky and makes a bonus based on success.

most people can not tolerate the gvt dropping a big gob of money on someone.

in the second case people will prefer the irrational punishment , in the short run.

in the long run that irrational punishment may actually be for the good.

this last point is what the bush and bama admins don't get.

now before i am trashed on the cryptic post, i am not going to try to do a paper on game theory here. We have posters for that. :D

games within games and i could be all wet.

[Boris]

AIG's $100G donation to Democrats was unknown to Gov. Paterson, he says

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/03/21/2009-03-21_aigs_100g_donation_to_democrats_was_unkn.html

Looks like all kinds of folks were on the AIG Gravy Train. I guess its safe to say Gov Paterson was "out of sight" when the money came in. :lol:

[witchdoctor]

AIG's $100G donation to Democrats was unknown to Gov. Paterson, he says

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/03/21/2009-03-21_aigs_100g_donation_to_democrats_was_unkn.html

Looks like all kinds of folks were on the AIG Gravy Train. I guess its safe to say Gov Paterson was "out of sight" when the money came in. :lol:


I guess he will say that he didn't see it.

[Tom]

They grow 'em dumb in NY.

[Tom]

Back on topic....if it is so important that AIG pay back the bonuses, why not go after the money spent on illegals for health care, welfare, education, etc.
Might be a bigger pot there to go after.

[RichieP]

They grow 'em dumb in NY.

Hey I resemble that remark!
:faint:

[Tom]

Richie, I meant governors! :D

[JustRalph]

you notice nobody is talking about the Chrysler bonus plan.........?


Look up how Obama let them get away with it.........then get back to me

[DJofSD]

AIG fall out - read this letter to the editor (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1) publsihed in the NYT.

After being thrown under the bus, this is one p*ssed off former employee. I don't blame him one iota for either his feelings or what he's done.

[ArlJim78]

Good for him. He should land a good job with a foreign company now.

Congratulations to the out-of-control mob that is running our country.
Your phony outrageous outrage last week will have the effect of scattering any of the remaining decent people on Wall Street.

We truly have become a banana republic.

[ddog]

I am willing to bet that NONE on this board , or very very few, realize or even will accept that the FP division BET THE HOUSE THE FARM AND ALL THE HORSES on these gambles, for that's all they were that have now sunk AIG the corp.
I am not even sure many outside of Cassano and his close criminal buddies knew what was being done to AIG.
They used AIG to leverage into these gambles and I bet if and when the facts come out that AIG assests from other divisions were backstopping these deals explicitly.

Since everyone that mattered at AIG KNEW that nothing could go wrong , no one would have been nervous about betting the farm on the gamble.


AIG the corp would have been and could still be I guess , if not for uncle , wiped OUT lock stock and barrel under default in payments of these GAMBLES.

I have a little sympathey for Jake , but his deal is no different than someone that invests in a bank and then through the actions of a bad loan officer or a high risk gambler in some division of the bank has the FDIC come in and take control of the failed bank to protect the depositors.

The "investor" gets the shaft even though he did not cause the failure and even though he may have had payment streams coming via other realtionships with the failed bank that are now not paid due to the failure.


Jake had a tough deal, so ??? Many have in the past and will again that's the capitalist system many here claim to favour.

His analogy here

"None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house"

would of course break down if the plumber and the electrican both worked for the firm they burnt down.

[ddog]

guess what, if all the people at AIG now know not to be involved with a firm that gambles recklessly with the future of the firm-country-world via outright GAMBLING and fraud like Cassano pulled ,well that's a GOOD THING.

You need discipline like this since we won't regulate as the gvt is bought by these firms.


Just as people after 9/11 were more vigilent of possible terrorists so this will and should serve the same purpose.


Open your eyes look around before the SHTF, don't be so gullible all the time.

[ArlJim78]

it looks like some people don't realize that after buying into this failed disaster of a company our government was perfectly happy to have all of these people working for AND RECEIVING BONUSES. Up until last week that is when they became the number one enemy in the country for some reason.

It's like the line from Animal House; "Face it, you f.cked up. you trusted us."