Members Bernie P. Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 All the grumbling over the huge bonus pay revolves around contracts made at AIG long before they received the bailout bucks.AIG claims there's nothing they can do about it as the contracts are legally binding.When did the Prez,Congress or anyone sign a legally binding contract to fork over billions of taxpayer money?AFAIK we didn't.So why the hell can't the Prez just take it all back and withhold funds until WE the taxpayers have OUR written contract stipulating-NO DAMN BONUS"S! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 I wonder how many Senators and Reps are getting increased "contributions" from their supporters after these things passed to keep their companies afloat... :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Let me ask this...was the bail-out money we gave them a loan or was it free money to them? If it was a loan that they have to pay back, then honestly, they can do whatever they want with the money. They can throw a huge party with it. Get Van Halen to reform and open for Led Zeppelin and turn it into a huge kegger....I mean, they still have to pay back all the money with interest don't they? Under a certain amount of time? Else they default and we seize all their assets and try to recoup. Yes? Now, if it was free money they don't have to pay back, then yeah I think they should have some guidelines as to how they should use it. If it's only a loan, then why is everyone crying about it? Don't get me wrong, I think it's reprehensible that AIG would reward their people with bonuses after they ran the company into the ground and none of them should get jack-squat. I'm just playing Devil's advocate here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Let me ask this...was the bail-out money we gave them a loan or was it free money to them? If it was a loan that they have to pay back, then honestly, they can do whatever they want with the money. They can throw a huge party with it. Get Van Halen to reform and open for Led Zeppelin and turn it into a huge kegger....I mean, they still have to pay back all the money with interest don't they? Under a certain amount of time? Else they default and we seize all their assets and try to recoup. Yes? Now, if it was free money they don't have to pay back, then yeah I think they should have some guidelines as to how they should use it. If it's only a loan, then why is everyone crying about it? Don't get me wrong, I think it's reprehensible that AIG would reward their people with bonuses after they ran the company into the ground and none of them should get jack-squat. I'm just playing Devil's advocate here.... They are contractually obligated to do so. If we decide that the written contract can be voided for political expediency, it may be be your contract next time. The media stresses the bonuses but fails to mention or waits to deep in the story to even let the viewer know that AIG can legally do nothing about these. Great media strikes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bluedogaudio Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 I say they take away all of AIG's bailout money. I don't see the purpose of bailing out companies with bad business practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 I say they take away all of AIG's bailout money. I don't see the purpose of bailing out companies with bad business practices. Remember, AIG is getting hammered for insuring mortgage loans, not for making the bad loans in the first place. AIG is an insurance company. Are they blameless? No, but they aren't the primary cause of their misfortune either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Remember, AIG is getting hammered for insuring mortgage loans, not for making the bad loans in the first place. AIG is an insurance company. Are they blameless? No, but they aren't the primary cause of their misfortune either. Hate to quibble, but AIG is in trouble for insuring people against LOSSES in real estate derivatives, not the loans themselves. This is where it gets too complex for ANY boradcast news source to cover in less that 1/2 hour, and where most 'muricans eyes start to glaze over because it has nothing to do with sports or who Britney is banging thisweek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JeffBass Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Remember, AIG is getting hammered for insuring mortgage loans, not for making the bad loans in the first place. AIG is an insurance company. Are they blameless? No, but they aren't the primary cause of their misfortune either. That's the truth. Here's a quote from economic expert Terry Savage, who appears on many TV shows and writes articles for major newspapers;"I am a true believer in free markets. But the free market in housing was destroyed long ago -- when Congress pushed banks to make loans to people who were not qualified, and forced Fannie and Freddie to underwrite questionable mortgages".It was actions by Congress that created the mess. Blaming the free market for following suit is like blaming gravity for a falling apple that hits you in the head. :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted March 17, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 Let me ask this...was the bail-out money we gave them a loan or was it free money to them? If it was a loan that they have to pay back, then honestly, they can do whatever they want with the money. They can throw a huge party with it. Get Van Halen to reform... All the King's horses and all the King's men, can't put van Halen together again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted March 17, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted March 17, 2009 Regarding the bonuses, I heard on the news today that many of the companies that would be bound by the new "tougher" bailout requirements that limit bonuses, are simply restructuring their executive compensation to pay higher base salaries. Duh. And some here think the gov would be good at running healthcare?? Or anything? They don't know what happened to the first bailout money, and they can't even form a second bailout package that doesn't have loopholes big enough to drive a Peterbilt through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Hate to quibble, but AIG is in trouble for insuring people against LOSSES in real estate derivatives, not the loans themselves. This is where it gets too complex for ANY boradcast news source to cover in less that 1/2 hour, and where most 'muricans eyes start to glaze over because it has nothing to do with sports or who Britney is banging thisweek. Wait, who is Britney banging this week? A pro football player? All I got out of that was Britney and sports. [/Average American] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Her cooch was hanging out last week at a show... or so The Soup said. Thassa all I gots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted March 17, 2009 Moderators Share Posted March 17, 2009 Remember, AIG is getting hammered for insuring mortgage loans, not for making the bad loans in the first place. AIG is an insurance company. Are they blameless? No, but they aren't the primary cause of their misfortune either.No. But the right thing to do would be to take all the executives who are supposed to get big bonuses and suggest that they can take a bonus and immediately retire or not take the bonus and get a renewed contract at a reduced payment price that is in line with us losing our butts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members walkerci Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Remember, AIG is getting hammered for insuring mortgage loans, not for making the bad loans in the first place. AIG is an insurance company. Are they blameless? No, but they aren't the primary cause of their misfortune either. Not so fast. AIG failed miserably to exercise due diligence. They should have known what kind of crap they were insuring. And by the way, what do you think the chances are of ANY bonus payments being made had AIG been allowed to fail? Pretty close to zero.You can't get blood from a stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WillPlay4food Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Not so fast.AIG failed miserably to exercise due diligence.They should have known what kind of crap they were insuring.And by the way, what do you think the chances are of ANY bonus payments being made had AIG been allowed to fail? Pretty close to zero.You can't get blood from a stone. The sad thing is, most of the really bad default obligations were written by one office in London and the head of that office made over 3.5 Billion in bonuses before the house of cards crumbled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Not so fast. AIG failed miserably to exercise due diligence. They should have known what kind of crap they were insuring. And by the way, what do you think the chances are of ANY bonus payments being made had AIG been allowed to fail? Pretty close to zero. You can't get blood from a stone. Not so fast. You apparently missed the part where I said "Are they blameless? No, but ...." The industry tended to go on historical data and that was where they failed. There was no historical example of the amount of money flooding into the system as there was during the boom years. I think I heard the amount of investable capital in the world doubled in 7 years during this period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Not so fast. You apparently missed the part where I said "Are they blameless? No, but ...." The industry tended to go on historical data and that was where they failed. There was no historical example of the amount of money flooding into the system as there was during the boom years. I think I heard the amount of investable capital in the world doubled in 7 years during this period. Well, it didn't REALLY double. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members toolbar Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 Let me ask this...was the bail-out money we gave them a loan or was it free money to them? If it was a loan that they have to pay back, then honestly, they can do whatever they want with the money. They can throw a huge party with it. Get Van Halen to reform and open for Led Zeppelin and turn it into a huge kegger....I mean, they still have to pay back all the money with interest don't they? Under a certain amount of time? Else they default and we seize all their assets and try to recoup. Yes?Now, if it was free money they don't have to pay back, then yeah I think they should have some guidelines as to how they should use it. If it's only a loan, then why is everyone crying about it? Don't get me wrong, I think it's reprehensible that AIG would reward their people with bonuses after they ran the company into the ground and none of them should get jack-squat. I'm just playing Devil's advocate here.... I think it's more that we the tax payers re-capitalized a huge portion - about 80% - of the AIG 'business' - kinda like refinancing bubba's race car team in the hopes that he wins 'the big one' - and bubba paid his pit crew a whole {censored} load because, well they did a fine job in the last race, even though we came in next to last - and now bubba can't buy tires for the next race, but, dang, sorry about your cash. for a little more bubba can buy tires and maybe win next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members filterthing Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 here is how i look at it in simple analogy... your best buddy is having some tough times cause he blew all his money on a bad investment he asks you for a big loan, and you give it to him you see him and his family out at a big fancy restaurant, eating a big expensive meal. He looks at you and says "hey we had this planned long before i lost all my money and got your money, too bad for you!" Now would you be pissed or just ok that they had it planned before? I for one would be pissed I don't claim it is a good analogy, but it is how I feel about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JeffBass Posted March 17, 2009 Members Share Posted March 17, 2009 here is how i look at it in simple analogy... your best buddy is having some tough times cause he blew all his money on a bad investment he asks you for a big loan, and you give it to him you see him and his family out at a big fancy restaurant, eating a big expensive meal. He looks at you and says "hey we had this planned long before i lost all my money and got your money, too bad for you!" Now would you be pissed or just ok that they had it planned before? I for one would be pissed I don't claim it is a good analogy, but it is how I feel about it... Works for me. Actually I think I've seen this analogy played out on an episode of Frazier... Yes, Frazier lent Roz money and then saw her buying all kinds of fancy schmantzy stuff with it. Boy howdy did he get pissed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chris-dax Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 And some here think the gov would be good at running healthcare?? Or anything? They don't know what happened to the first bailout money, and they can't even form a second bailout package that doesn't have loopholes big enough to drive a Peterbilt through. Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections in the 'Dodd Amendment' Rules Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members L-1329 Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Last year I was this -> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chris-dax Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 All the grumbling over the huge bonus pay revolves around contracts made at AIG long before they received the bailout bucks.AIG claims there's nothing they can do about it as the contracts are legally binding.When did the Prez,Congress or anyone sign a legally binding contract to fork over billions of taxpayer money?AFAIK we didn't.So why the hell can't the Prez just take it all back and withhold funds until WE the taxpayers have OUR written contract stipulating-NO DAMN BONUS"S! Dood - O'bama and practically every single democrat in the house and senate signed off on the $787 billion stimulus last month that specifically authorized an Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vinylphile Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Regarding the bonuses, I heard on the news today that many of the companies that would be bound by the new "tougher" bailout requirements that limit bonuses, are simply restructuring their executive compensation to pay higher base salaries.Duh.And some here think the gov would be good at running healthcare?? Or anything? They don't know what happened to the first bailout money, and they can't even form a second bailout package that doesn't have loopholes big enough to drive a Peterbilt through. Hmmmmm...lessee...up here in this "socialist" nation of Canada, the government acts as the sole medical insurer. How's it working out for us? Our medical care costs FAR less than yours, everybody is insured, and we have lower infant and maternal mortality rates (considered to be one of the hallmarks of a medical system). On the other hand, automobile insurance is run by private companies and costs are spiralling out of control here in Toronto. So to respond to your statement...no, I do not trust the government to handle much of anything, but I trust it far more than I do insurance companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goofball Jones Posted March 18, 2009 Members Share Posted March 18, 2009 Hmmmmm...lessee...up here in this "socialist" nation of Canada, the government acts as the sole medical insurer. How's it working out for us? Our medical care costs FAR less than yours, everybody is insured, and we have lower infant and maternal mortality rates (considered to be one of the hallmarks of a medical system). On the other hand, automobile insurance is run by private companies and costs are spiralling out of control here in Toronto. So to respond to your statement...no, I do not trust the government to handle much of anything, but I trust it far more than I do insurance companies. You'll find that some in America are under the impression that in Canada you have to wait months or years to just see a doctor and the waiting list is out of control and people die on the streets because they can't get in to see anyone and blah blah blah. It will be interesting to see how the guys here will spin what you just said and say how bad Canada's health system is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.