Bonuses for bailed out companies Options

[dauss]

So, I'm trying to think of an example that would be close to the situation that AIG is facing to get a gauge on this particular situation.

Let's pretend that Brinker International Restaurants(Chili's, Maggiano's, On the Border, and Romano's Macaroni Grill) got a bailout with your tax dollars because they're in financial trouble. So, let's also pretend that one of their concepts was the main cause for all their profit loss, On the Border in this hypothetical case. So, On the Border has such massive losses that it causes Brinker to have to report a loss for the fiscal year.

Now, let's just say that you work for Chili's and don't really have any connection to On the Border because that's a different division. You've been doing your job and Chili's, Romano's, and Maggiano's not only made budget, but actually had profit for the last year. Should you get bonus, along with the guys from Romano's and Maggiano's?

[pysex]

that theory would work fine except for the bonuses being paid to the board executives who pretty much oversee all operations regardless of divisions

what worries me more is that banks received bailout money from the U.S. government as well as payback money from other sources like AIG....So on top of the 70 billion or whatever that was paid out initially...the banks received a chunk of change from AIG bailout....so now the banks are made whole but they were the ones making the bad decisions in the first place

we shouldn't be focusing our hate on AIG right now....we should be hanging the bank executives

[FORSAKENR320]

bottom line to me is that the bailout money is to help the american people as a whole. not an individual fat cat with a deep wallet. the money should not be spent on bonus's for anybody, no matter how well their company did, wether they deserve a raise of not, the bail out money should not go towards individual gain.

[chook]

At raytheon, if the space systems, or optics do poorly, then my bonus gets affected.

[impala454]

At Jacobs our raises in the space sector were unaffected by shortfalls in the general contracting portion of the company.

[Hartmann]

There are three questions here.

1. Should the government bailout not have included the clauses that allowed for bonuses?
2. Is AIG in some way obligated to run their business differently simply because they received government money?
3. Is the end-around that the government is pulling a bad idea or even legal?

I seem to think that the problem starts at the top. Fine, Congress, you want to bail them out, do it but don't put clauses in there simply because they were one of the largest contributors to the campaign. Secondly, AIG is a business and they do not have an obligation to the taxpayers to not provide bonuses. Now, out of the goodness of their hearts, they could have chosen a different path.

The taxing of the bonuses at 90% is a shady move in my opinion and borders on unconstitutional. There was a President not too long ago that tried to change tax rates on certain people and he was forced to resign, claiming he wasn't a crook.

I just can't believe so many people are getting so worked up about all of this. The $$$ that was given out as bonuses pales in comparison to what has been proposed as the stimulus package. We're on the verge of bankruptcy and people are worried about pennies rather than the $500 bills falling out of the sky.

The publisher of Forbes was doing an interview this morning and made an obvious comment that no one else had mentioned, why did the government not do these negotiations behind closed doors and try to solve this problem without involving American citizens. People are going to these AIG employee's homes and protesting. Give me a break.

[THECHICKEN]

Its like handing candy to a little kid.....

then punching the kid in the face for eating it

[Billy]

I think the government should use tax money to give me a $10 million bonus. Sure, it's less than pennies on the dollar compared to our GDP but I'm pretty sure if I or others just started receiving large amounts of money from tax dollars you (Impala and Hartmann) would be pretty outraged.

The reason people are ticked about this, is not because of the amount, but because people are living large on the people's labor depite poor performance. I wouldn't care if they gave some CEO only $1 million of our tax dollars, I would still be ticked. Because here's some guy who gets to live rich, go to resorts, throw parties, on my money, while I don't even get to do that on my money. And to add insult to injury, he's being rewarded for being a FAILURE.

So the question remains, would these CEO's have received a bonus without the bailout? If the answer is no, then they shouldn't have received the bonus with the bailout.

[impala454]

Except that paying you $10 million isn't part of a contract for a business the government is trying to keep afloat.

You are dead on on why people are ticked, and was exactly the point I made in the other thread. Because people are "living large". It's all about perspective, and you and everyone else who's ticked fails to see it in perspective. You just see the word "millions" and "executives" and draw your own conclusions based on your decidedly non-millions non-executive lifestyle. All you see is someone doing better than you and you feel that knocking them down to your level is the only solution.

The bottom line is, you have no idea how this business is run, you have no idea who the people receiving the bonuses are, and you have no idea about their job performance, or what their contracts entitle them to. So bitching about it is stupid.

Lastly, understand the concept of how business people work. Many work similar to waiters. They have a base salary, and then receive a "bonus" based on their performance. No doubt that, even with the bonuses, these people are probably only receiving a fraction of what they might normally make in a year. Part of keeping the company afloat is keeping employees working there. Obviously the ones that met their marks well enough to receive their bonuses are the ones you want to keep. You think hacking all these people's pay and having them leave the company is what will turn it around??

[FORSAKENR320]

Its like handing candy to a little kid.....

then punching the kid in the face for eating it

you need to stop following me on saturday afternoons...

[FORSAKENR320]

The bottom line is, you have no idea how this business is run, you have no idea who the people receiving the bonuses are, and you have no idea about their job performance, or what their contracts entitle them to. So bitching about it is stupid.

so lets all take the impala example and ignore it. since apparently we don't understand.... we shouldn't question things we don't understand...

and your little speech about keeping people in the business... you think that the banking industry won't survive without these people? on the whole they are FAILURES. their bad decisions is what caused their own money problems. they leave, and they will be replaced.

they took the wrong gamble. what you're saying is alot like me going to vegas, losing a couple $1000 and then expecting the casino to give me the money back so that i can try to gamble again and hopefully win this time.


you're a god damn moron. no wonder NASA hasn't come up with anything useful lately when they hire people like you.

my advise:: tell your boss that you wanna be the next dumb-fuck chimp they send into outer space

[chook]

Except that paying you $10 million isn't part of a contract for a business the government is trying to keep afloat.

You are dead on on why people are ticked, and was exactly the point I made in the other thread. Because people are "living large". It's all about perspective, and you and everyone else who's ticked fails to see it in perspective. You just see the word "millions" and "executives" and draw your own conclusions based on your decidedly non-millions non-executive lifestyle. All you see is someone doing better than you and you feel that knocking them down to your level is the only solution.

The bottom line is, you have no idea how this business is run, you have no idea who the people receiving the bonuses are, and you have no idea about their job performance, or what their contracts entitle them to. So bitching about it is stupid.

Lastly, understand the concept of how business people work. Many work similar to waiters. They have a base salary, and then receive a "bonus" based on their performance. No doubt that, even with the bonuses, these people are probably only receiving a fraction of what they might normally make in a year. Part of keeping the company afloat is keeping employees working there. Obviously the ones that met their marks well enough to receive their bonuses are the ones you want to keep. You think hacking all these people's pay and having them leave the company is what will turn it around??

If they earned the money without failure, then thats great. I am about capitalism, not this sad excuse called corporate welfare. I would of not given out the releif. Lots of this money left the country anyways. Congress is going after this because of the sensationalism, while trying to hide the fact they are fuckups.

[Billy]

Except that paying you $10 million isn't part of a contract for a business the government is trying to keep afloat.

You are dead on on why people are ticked, and was exactly the point I made in the other thread. Because people are "living large". It's all about perspective, and you and everyone else who's ticked fails to see it in perspective. You just see the word "millions" and "executives" and draw your own conclusions based on your decidedly non-millions non-executive lifestyle. All you see is someone doing better than you and you feel that knocking them down to your level is the only solution.

The bottom line is, you have no idea how this business is run, you have no idea who the people receiving the bonuses are, and you have no idea about their job performance, or what their contracts entitle them to. So bitching about it is stupid.

Lastly, understand the concept of how business people work. Many work similar to waiters. They have a base salary, and then receive a "bonus" based on their performance. No doubt that, even with the bonuses, these people are probably only receiving a fraction of what they might normally make in a year. Part of keeping the company afloat is keeping employees working there. Obviously the ones that met their marks well enough to receive their bonuses are the ones you want to keep. You think hacking all these people's pay and having them leave the company is what will turn it around??

I laughed when you started explaining to me what a "bonus" was.

For you non-corporate types, I will let you in on a little secret: Bonuses are typically paid out based on company performance. If your company doesn't meet its financial goals, no one gets bonuses. Now while I do not know how AIG pays out its bonuses, it is a pretty good bet that they pay out bonuses based on company performance like most other giant coorporations. Because in large coorporations, individual performance is very difficult to measure since so many people are involved, the general policy is to simply award everyone for a good overall company performance, rather than try to reward individuals, since that is prone to corruption and misappropriation of funds.

Now to my point. What I am infuriated about is not about the bonuses, rather that they consider the bailout as income (since they paid out bonuses to their employees). We can equate that to your 20 something spoiled brats who get themselves into a lot of financial trouble and then ask mommy and daddy for some cash. And instead of learning from their mistake, they treat parental help as a source of income and never try to fix their financial situation, but instead, keep partying and rely on that gift over and over again. I am mostly afraid that AIG will not mature from this experience. Their actions display to me that they are the spoiled brat, and instead of taking actions to slim down, become efficient, and work through this, they are taking our money and celebrating as if AIG is doing great! And when they mess up again, then what? Another bailout? When will it end? Will it end?

I am so happy that my government decided for me that I become a customer of AIG. And the great thing for AIG is they don't have to provide me with anything!

[pysex]

you do know that China is buying up our debt right now right?


and that Secretary Clinton has gone to Mexico twice now in the new administration....


guys...these are all the intricate steps to the dismantling of American sovereignty...

i don't know if it's going to be our generation but there will be some earth shattering change soon enough and things will be very different (revolution, apocalypse, world war, etc.)


the American people have lost their fury

the government no longer fears us because we depend on it....we live off of it

we've lost personal responsibility, justice, and passion....we're fucking doomed

[Dogmeat]

you do know that China is buying up our debt right now right?


and that Secretary Clinton has gone to Mexico twice now in the new administration....


guys...these are all the intricate steps to the dismantling of American sovereignty...

i don't know if it's going to be our generation but there will be some earth shattering change soon enough and things will be very different (revolution, apocalypse, world war, etc.)


the American people have lost their fury

the government no longer fears us because we depend on it....we live off of it

we've lost personal responsibility, justice, and passion....we're fucking doomed

Yup. And the only cure it to start killing as many poor people as we possibly can.

[FORSAKENR320]

Yup. And the only cure it to start killing as many poor people as we possibly can.

in an apocalypse, it won't be the poor people that die. they know how to deal without and are accustomed to adaptability. i hate most of my clients. alot of them will die because they tried to steal from the wrong person, etc. but just as many of them are clever enough to find a way to live. i can't say the same for the majority of middle class society.

it will be the sheep of society that are led to the massacre, and like alex, i truelly do believe it's coming.

[Psykopath]

Down with civilization!

[FORSAKENR320]

Down with civilization!

AND UP WITH TITS!

[Psykopath]

AND UP WITH TITS!

or with ass, like we saw last night at Bash's...damn.

[FORSAKENR320]

or with ass, like we saw last night at Bash's...damn.

god damn... that bartender girl knew it too... there is no way in hell that girl didn't know exactly what she was doing... haha

[Hartmann]

I still do not think we are getting the "transparency" that we were promised.

The majority of Americans now think that AIG is some big, bad wolf without even knowing that the people receiving bonuses were asked to work for very small sums of money during the hard times. As compensation they would receive bonuses when the money was available.

Reading the letter from Jake DeSantis to Liddy spells it out better than I can: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/...antis.html?_r=1

[woody]

keep in mind these are not bonuses, this is a way to give fat cash not included in the salary

i'd love to see the contract that says your bonus is guaranteed no matter how shitty you run the company

that's not a bonus, that's a flex salary.

This post has been edited by woody: Mar 25 2009, 08:08 AM

[impala454]

I do not know how AIG pays out its bonuses

Thanks, that's all I needed from you.

[impala454]

If they earned the money without failure, then thats great. I am about capitalism, not this sad excuse called corporate welfare. I would of not given out the releif. Lots of this money left the country anyways. Congress is going after this because of the sensationalism, while trying to hide the fact they are fuckups.

So if a company fails, that relieves them of obligation to every employee? Are you all for those companies that basically close down, lock the doors, and don't so much as let the employees back in to gather their belongings? And as you said, if they earned the money without failure then they deserve what they're entitled to. The overall failure of the company is not an indicator that every single person in the chain failed in their job, or didn't meet their bonus requirements. Note that nowhere in any new article does it mention that every employee of AIG received some kind of bonus.

[impala454]

so lets all take the impala example and ignore it. since apparently we don't understand.... we shouldn't question things we don't understand...

uh, ok

and your little speech about keeping people in the business... you think that the banking industry won't survive without these people? on the whole they are FAILURES. their bad decisions is what caused their own money problems. they leave, and they will be replaced.

Which people's bad decisions? How on earth do you know which people's bad decisions resulted in the company's failure, and if those correlate to people who received their contracted bonus?

they took the wrong gamble. what you're saying is alot like me going to vegas, losing a couple $1000 and then expecting the casino to give me the money back so that i can try to gamble again and hopefully win this time.

No, it'd be like you going to vegas, having the casino guarantee you a couple $1000, then not giving it to you because someone else broke the bank.

you're a god damn moron. no wonder NASA hasn't come up with anything useful lately when they hire people like you.

Jealous much?

my advise:: tell your boss that you wanna be the next dumb-fuck chimp they send into outer space

I would love to actually.

[Billy]

Thanks, that's all I needed from you.

I confirmed AIG pays out bonuses based on company performance.

Source: My mother-in-law who has worked as a computer scientist for AIG for 10+ years.

[impala454]

haha "computer scientist"... mmmk

so ask her the details then if she's so privy to all the executives contracts (doubtful).

[FORSAKENR320]

Which people's bad decisions? How on earth do you know which people's bad decisions resulted in the company's failure, and if those correlate to people who received their contracted bonus?

highest command always takes the blame. their fault. goes with the job. sorry that i have to explain the most basic of social understandings to you, dumbass

[impala454]

but you don't know for a fact that the people who were paid were only the "highest command". show me a list of the people who were paid and their positions, and their contracts. then you can bitch and cry all you want and join Obama in his executive witch hunt designed to pull your attention away from how stupid his decisions thus far have been.

and no need to apologize, I've gotten used to you and your buddy Will's childish need to add ", dumbass" to everything because you think it brings some sense of validity to your posts.

[woody]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...he_big_takeover

here's a long & good article to read

no i will give no cliff notes

[FORSAKENR320]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...he_big_takeover

here's a long & good article to read

no i will give no cliff notes

BEARS A STRIKING RESEMBLANCE TO MY CONSPIRACY THEORY IN THE COLD FUSION THREAD

(fuck... caps lock. oh well i'm lazy)

[impala454]

yeah lemme go read politics from the rolling stone... i think i'd rather go eat a bowl of razor blades

[FORSAKENR320]

yeah lemme go read politics from the rolling stone... i think i'd rather go eat a bowl of razor blades

lol. that'll be a fun bowel movement.

[Billy]

Impala, you idiot. EVERYONE got a bonus. Not just the executives. The question should be this: Would they have paid out a bonus if they got a multi billion dollar loan?

NO.

Now, stop trying to play the "well you guys don't know the details" bullshit and actually put forth an argument.

[FORSAKENR320]

i read somewhere that if obama decided to pay each family living in america 1 million dollars, he'd be spending less than the bailout. i don't really know what the reprocussions would be for american society, but if the stimulus worked, why couldn't that? lol

[chook]

i read somewhere that if obama decided to pay each family living in america 1 million dollars, he'd be spending less than the bailout. i don't really know what the reprocussions would be for american society, but if the stimulus worked, why couldn't that? lol

It would probably work much better, but we would make the rich more middle class. We cannot do that!

[FORSAKENR320]

It would probably work much better, but we would make the rich more middle class. We cannot do that!

i wonder... if obama gave all families 1 million dollars... and then those families struggling with the subprime mortgages actually paid their house debts off... wouldn't that fix the whole damn problem that the banks are having in the first place?

[woody]

yeah lemme go read politics from the rolling stone... i think i'd rather go eat a bowl of razor blades

oh i'm sorry. what's the current unbiased political news source that everyone is using these days?

[dauss]

i read somewhere that if obama decided to pay each family living in america 1 million dollars, he'd be spending less than the bailout. i don't really know what the reprocussions would be for american society, but if the stimulus worked, why couldn't that? lol

Hmm, the US Census Bureau said back in 1995, there are 68 million family households. If 1 million dollars were given to each family based on 1995 numbers, that would come out to be 68 trillion dollars. We are no where close to spending that much.

[impala454]

Impala, you idiot. EVERYONE got a bonus. Not just the executives. The question should be this: Would they have paid out a bonus if they got a multi billion dollar loan?

NO.

Now, stop trying to play the "well you guys don't know the details" bullshit and actually put forth an argument.

You don't know the details, or at least you've failed to post any thus far. "everybody got a bonus" is not details. And until you have them your senseless bitching about the goings on of a company you know jack shit about makes you the good little sheep Obama wants you to be. baaaaaa!

[impala454]

oh i'm sorry. what's the current unbiased political news source that everyone is using these days?

I didn't mean biased so much as it being an entertainment magazine. Kinda the same reason I don't watch the Academy awards looking for political commentary as well.

[impala454]

i read somewhere that if obama decided to pay each family living in america 1 million dollars, he'd be spending less than the bailout. i don't really know what the reprocussions would be for american society, but if the stimulus worked, why couldn't that? lol

The repercussions would be Back to the Future II style... $50 12 oz Coke.

(other than the obvious math problem Dauss pointed out)

[pysex]

i wonder... if obama gave all families 1 million dollars... and then those families struggling with the subprime mortgages actually paid their house debts off... wouldn't that fix the whole damn problem that the banks are having in the first place?

no

giving every family a million dollars would be the worst idea ever in modern economic history....

why? because then a loaf of bread would cost 3000 dollars instead of 3....having more money on the market than there is goods causes hyperinflation and it would only make our situation worse


the fact of the matter is...in order for America to run properly there has to be a poor class, middle class, and wealthy class....unfortunately we're moving towards a poor class and a wealthy class and we all know where that goes

[woody]

bail out student loans, then i'll vote for you obama

[dauss]

Here's the resignation letter from one of the VP of AIG Jake DeSantis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/...antis.html?_r=2

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. 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.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

[Billy]

You don't know the details, or at least you've failed to post any thus far. "everybody got a bonus" is not details. And until you have them your senseless bitching about the goings on of a company you know jack shit about makes you the good little sheep Obama wants you to be. baaaaaa!

This is what I know, Impala: Bonuses were paid out at AIG and in the sum of $165 million. That amount was divied up amongst its employees depending on their contracts. That's all the details anybody needs.

So I ask again, should AIG have paid out bonuses? Do you think that is irresponsible? Should AIG consider our tax dollars as cash in their pocket or should they have treated it as a loan?

The american people have cause to be outraged. And not just at AIG.

[dauss]

This is what I know, Impala: Bonuses were paid out at AIG and in the sum of $165 million. That amount was divied up amongst its employees depending on their contracts. That's all the details anybody needs.

So I ask again, should AIG have paid out bonuses? Do you think that is irresponsible? Should AIG consider our tax dollars as cash in their pocket or should they have treated it as a loan?

The american people have cause to be outraged. And not just at AIG.

Uhm.....Actually the $165 million was paid to the top executives. There is at least another $900 million that has been paid to the lower level employees. I do think that people have cause to be outraged, but the scale of this is like giving a family $10 and criticizing how they spent $0.01 of it.

[Billy]

Well, I guess I shouldn't be opposed to people abusing welfare either, since that's such a small tax payer expense relative to other government spending.

And honestly, I feel a better analogy is giving a homeless guy $10000 to get off his feet and off the street and the first thing he does with it is spend $10 on booze. Hey, he might use the other $9990 to clean up and fix his problems, but so far it isn't looking good.

[dauss]

And honestly, I feel a better analogy is giving a homeless guy $10000 to get off his feet and off the street and the first thing he does with it is spend $10 on booze. Hey, he might use the other $9990 to clean up and fix his problems, but so far it isn't looking good.

Except that it has been 6 months since they were given the money and a significant chunk has been used to cover derivative insurance losses. Remember last month when AIG announced they lost over $60 billion? So, that is a horrible analogy because the first they did wasn't paying executive bonuses.

[impala454]

Uhm.....Actually the $165 million was paid to the top executives. There is at least another $900 million that has been paid to the lower level employees. I do think that people have cause to be outraged, but the scale of this is like giving a family $10 and criticizing how they spent $0.01 of it.

Yeah I barked up that tree earlier in the thread and it didn't sit well apparently... good thinking though.

And very interesting find on that resignation letter.

[Hartmann]

Here's the resignation letter from one of the VP of AIG Jake DeSantis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/...antis.html?_r=2

I posted this earlier in the thread thinking it would clear up the argument...

The letter gives a great "from the mind of a worker" perspective.

[chook]

The problem is that noone is going to say we were responsible for it. I say let it all die. I remember 10 years ago when enron failed and everyone was talking about ethics for a few months.

That guy should state which division was responsible, instead of saying it wasn't him.