Members lug Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDp10KHqqRgo&refer=home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 You didn't think this could go in the existing AIG thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 You didn't think this could go in the existing AIG thread? This is potentially a lot bigger than the contents of the AIG thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 This is potentially a lot bigger than the contents of the AIG thread. Not really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WillPlay4food Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 Since this legislation would apply to all the companies receiving gov't money (I don't think any are below the $5B mark), this is bigger than AIG. I can understand the frustration, but really the anger should be levied at the people who passed the two stimulus packages for not thinking of this situation beforehand. Literally billions and billions of dollars of gov't money has been spent on bonuses since last Fall (one story I read said $50B, trying to find it again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 Not really. I got to work for company A and my agreed pay is salary plus bonus. I work for minimum wage plus big bonus. The agreement says I get my compensastion if I work till Dec 31 (BTW most of the bonuses at AIG were time worked based, not performance based), At the end of the year, I fulfill my end of the bargain by working until Dec 31. I get my compensation. Congress then decides to retroactively tax my compensation at 90%. They didn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 ALERT ALERT! (cue the Star Trek red alert sound) Focus shift now from AIG to Fannie Mae. Four Fannie Mae execs to get big bonuses: Troubled mortgage giant Fannie Mae planned to pay four top executives retention bonuses ranging from $470,000 to $611,000, according to a February SEC filing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted March 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 19, 2009 If they can get away with doing it there, they can do it to anybody. They always could. :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 I can understand the frustration, but really the anger should be levied at the people who passed the two stimulus packages for not thinking of this situation beforehand. There is wording in the bailouts from Dodd that actually protect these bonuses who now insists the Obama administration "made him do it". It's certainly not that "they didn't know", it that they scurry like rats when the media does it's same old "tell half the story to get people pissed" routine. Protecting the bonuses is reasonable. The new "outrage" on Capitol Hill would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted March 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 19, 2009 There is wording in the bailouts from Dodd that actually protect these bonuses who now insists the Obama administration "made him do it". It's certainly not that "they didn't know", it that they scurry like rats when the media does it's same old "tell half the story to get people pissed" routine. Protecting the bonuses is reasonable. I'm with you on all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 They always could. :poke: Well sure, but they never would have dared before (except with good old sin taxes on cigs and booze) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 I got to work for company A and my agreed pay is salary plus bonus. I work for minimum wage plus big bonus. The agreement says I get my compensastion if I work till Dec 31 (BTW most of the bonuses at AIG were time worked based, not performance based), At the end of the year, I fulfill my end of the bargain by working until Dec 31. I get my compensation. Congress then decides to retroactively tax my compensation at 90%. They didn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 There is wording in the bailouts from Dodd that actually protect these bonuses who now insists the Obama administration "made him do it". It's certainly not that "they didn't know", it that they scurry like rats when the media does it's same old "tell half the story to get people pissed" routine. Protecting the bonuses is reasonable. The new "outrage" on Capitol Hill would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous. That was idiotic. But again...it was already being discussed in the other AIG thread. :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chris-dax Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 Since this legislation would apply to all the companies receiving gov't money (I don't think any are below the $5B mark), this is bigger than AIG. I can understand the frustration, but really the anger should be levied at the people who passed the two stimulus packages for not thinking of this situation beforehand. Literally billions and billions of dollars of gov't money has been spent on bonuses since last Fall (one story I read said $50B, trying to find it again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 ...not one Republican would get near the damn thing. Because Republican's can only say one thing "tax break". Seriously, I think they actually have it in their contracts that the only two words they can utter now is "tax break" or "tax relief" or "lower taxes". :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bluedogaudio Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 You didn't think this could go in the existing AIG thread? +1 I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J the D Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 What is so sad is that the lion's share of the losses that are being funded at AIG are for the collateralized mortgage securities they insured. As I understand it, that was pretty much one guy allowed to run rampant by the AIG Board. The guys getting hte bonuses MADE MONEY for AIG, not lost it. If AIG had not had 180 billion dollars funnelled to it to pay off the insured collaterallized mortgage securites we would have been giving the banks that were paid under the contracts by AIG the 180 billion dollars to make up for what AIG did not pay them. The political posturing on both sides of the aisle is enough to make me puke. If they want to assess blame starat with the de-regulation of banks under Clinton and add to it the total removal of any oversight of the investment banks by Bush and the SEC. THEY'RE ALL TO BLAME! All the bankers did is what the politicians let them do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 That was idiotic. But again...it was already being discussed in the other AIG thread. :poke: This is the forum that has people making threads with just one word in them or parody threads....and NOW you're worrying about consolidating threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 Because Republican's can only say one thing "tax break". Seriously, I think they actually have it in their contracts that the only two words they can utter now is "tax break" or "tax relief" or "lower taxes". :poke: The GOP is betting the farm on this thing failing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 This is the forum that has people making threads with just one word in them or parody threads....and NOW you're worrying about consolidating threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members toolbar Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 but, why is protecting AIG bonus contracts more acceptable than protecting IAW (UAW?) contracts? Union bustin' was one of the stipulations of bailing out Detroit. I think congress critters shouldn't be messin' with contract law. I'm non-union by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDp10KHqqRgo&refer=home OH LUG......REALLY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hawkhuff Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 They always could. :poke: And THAT.....makes it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 This is the forum that has people making threads with just one word in them or parody threads....and NOW you're worrying about consolidating threads? It's a perception thang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J the D Posted March 19, 2009 Members Share Posted March 19, 2009 but, why is protecting AIG bonus contracts more acceptable than protecting IAW (UAW?) contracts? Union bustin' was one of the stipulations of bailing out Detroit.I think congress critters shouldn't be messin' with contract law.I'm non-union by the way. Because the financial personnel are being compensated comensurate with the world market. THe IAM and UAN contracts are well in excess of the world market for what they do. AIG is competitive salary wise with the world market. GM, Ford and Chrysler are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.