AIG Bonuses

Is anybody else uncomfortable with the ex post facto banning bonuses after Geithner and Dodd and others specifically allowed them in writing? Is it right to use the tax code for demagoguing?

Apparently, Connie Mack does. He is calling for Geithner to resign or be fired. At least he didn't call for him to resign or kill himself, but I'd be ok with any of the above.

That's great. Geithner resigns and we get his replacement into Dodd's committee for some pre-confirmation hearing about November. A trail of formerly promising young men and women are crucified on the cross of paying one's fair share of taxes. And for what? Maybe they can fill some of the other jobs going begging in Commerce first and get somebody in there to answer the phones.

I'd like to see some impeachments begin. I'd like to see Dodd, Franks, Waters, and a host of others impeached, or resign, or......

I'm open to suggestions. Whatever to get them the hell out.

I wonder how long it will take for the average American voter to figure out it is the members of the House & the Senate that is responsible for much of screwing we're all getting.

What that bunch in Washington is neglecting to tell the public is that in some instances, those receiving bonuses agreed to a salary of $1.00 per year in exchange for bonus money, they're contractually obligated to pay them and when the bailout was approved, it was without strings and we were told the government WAS NOT going to interfere with day to day operations.

Aaron,

Do you really think executives that ran a company into the ground, begging for taxpayer money, deserve salaries and/or bonuses in excess of $1,000,000 a year?


I do not.

I'm of two minds on the matter.

One is that OF COURSE those pilots of a sinking ship ought not be getting these bonuses.

HOWEVER

I am very, VERY weary of the government confiscating money paid out legally and according to contract. The best advice I've heard so far came from a New York Democrat who was on CNBC this afternoon (I watched it at a local restaurant). I forget his name but he suggested to the AIG CEO to pay back the 165 million to the gov't, as it only represented a fraction of the money that went from DC to AIG, as it would become an increasingly bitter pill to swallow the longer it "sat out there."

Aaron wrote:What that bunch in Washington is neglecting to tell the public is that in some instances, those receiving bonuses agreed to a salary of $1.00 per year in exchange for bonus money, they're contractually obligated to pay them and when the bailout was approved, it was without strings and we were told the government WAS NOT going to interfere with day to day operations.

Now the facts as I remember are:

That new CEO of AIG that Congress was grilling about all of AIG's failures ..... was asked to serve as CEO by Congress and he agreed to for $1 per year.

Those Derivitives Trader's Contracts specified those Bonuses and Senator Dodd SPECIFICALLY included Legislation in the AIG Bailout Bill that insured said Bonuses would remain as-is and not be subject to any Bailout restrictions.

Those clowns that were blaming everything on CEO Libbey ....... were actually the ones that did the dirty deeds .......... and were just trying to CTA so partisans like Sherman could continue spouting their glory.

A big chunk of that $165 million went to Traders in England and they can't get it back except voluntarily.

Just about everything those asses are contemplating is in violation of the Constitution.

And besides, who really gives a shit about that $165 million, ...... it is the BILLION$ they should be worrying about.


.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Do you really think executives that ran a company into the ground, begging for taxpayer money, deserve salaries and/or bonuses in excess of $1,000,000 a year?


I do not.

How much of these salaries went to day brokers and traders who did what they were supposed to do and met the criteria set forth in their contracts?

How many of these executives met criteria set forth in their contracts to get the bonus money?

There was NO provision set forth when the bailout was passed that gave the authority to stop the bonuses and it's damn sure WRONG for the government to punish the recipients through the tax code.

If the government didn't want the bonuses paid, they shouldn't have given AIG money. But they did and did so unconditionally.

The next to last thing I want is the government coming in and changing contracts willy nilly because they don't like how they read. Are you cool with that Stephanie?

To answer your question, yes, I want every employee who met the criteria set forth in their employment contracts to be compensated accordingly.

Well my memory is not what it used to be.

But as I remember it this subject of executive bonuses came up very on in the consideration of whether to inject public money into these deals.

And I think I remember an agreement being reached that they would not do that.

Does anyone else remember it that way?

That's why I was surprised when this stuff came out.

Your memory may be better than Chris Dodd's. Yesterday, he said the same thing: that he specifically asked for language to deny bonuses. Today we find out that the ubiquitously named Dodd Amendment specifically allows the bonuses. This makes Dodd, at the very least, a demagogue. It makes Obama who signed the bill that carried the Dodd Amendment less than attentive. And it makes us all responsible for paying $165 million in bonuses to AIG executives.

Well do you remember as I do that this issue did not just "pop up" lately, and was not just discovered?

That it was thought about and publicly reported on months ago?

Also on the Dodd amendment is what you say the whole story?

Because I heard yesterday from a left-leaning source that it did not go down that way and like Paul Harvey used to say we did not get "the rest of the story"?

Was the Dodd amendment really the "Dodd" amendment?

sodbuster wrote:Because I heard yesterday from a left-leaning source ..........

Typical Democrat response, ......... blame it on someone/something other than yourself.

This is not the story I was referring to but it does shed a little more light on it.

I know it is more politically popular to blame Dodd, but like Dutch used to say facts are stubborn things...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/

No, why blame Dodd? Just because he admits it...

Well it will be self-explanatory if you read the source.

(all the way to the bottom, including updates. I know u r a busy man but still...)

Might help if you actually read different views...

sodbuster wrote:This is not the story I was referring to but it does shed a little more light on it.

I know it is more politically popular to blame Dodd, but like Dutch used to say facts are stubborn things...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/

JEEEZUS KERIST ..... Sherman, ...... quit looking for a horse's rectum to pull shit out of, ......... Dodd admitted to doing it.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd said on Wednesday he was responsible for a legislative loophole that let AIG pay executives $165 million in bonuses, but that he acted at the behest of the Obama administration.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52I08X20090319

.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1886138,00.html

Using yet another reactionary, right-wing source I continue to argue against the very excellent Salon.com that Geithner and Dodd are lying crapweasels who conspired to to lie to the American public, if not the Administration. Of course, why would we suspect a tax evader to be a liar?

.

Barney Frank, Geithner and Dodd

The Gang that can't mouth straight.

.

So, stop me if I'm wrong here, the non-elected Treasury Department wants to protect AIG's bonuses and goes to the elected chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and imposes on him to write the legislation. I'm not real experienced in the ways of the U.S. Congress but that scenario is goofy on the face of it. The beauty of being a faceless, appointed bureaucrat is that you don't have to face the voters. The bureaucrat always provides cover for the politician and never the other way around. It is far more likely that Treasury officials will now fall on their swords and say "what Dodd says is right - We made him do it."

Was there a contract between AIG and the recipients of bonuses?

Can the Fed make AIG set aside a pre-existing contract?

Would you all support that?

I don't think the fed should have given out the bailout money in the first place, mind you.

TerryRC wrote:Was there a contract between AIG and the recipients of bonuses?

Can the Fed make AIG set aside a pre-existing contract?

Would you all support that?

I don't think the fed should have given out the bailout money in the first place, mind you.

Well TRC the UAW had a contract too.

But I bet all these guys who are so outraged about extracting "concessions" from the big money bandits were all for cutting wages in half for the workers.

You CAN NOT document one case where UAW contracts were cut by ANYONE.

You might be able to provide a UAW agreement or concession but you will find no cases where a court or government official cut wages or did anything that was out of line with a contract.

That's just liberal propaganda BS.

"The next to last thing I want is the government coming in and changing contracts willy nilly because they don't like how they read. Are you cool with that Stephanie?

To answer your question, yes, I want every employee who met the criteria set forth in their employment contracts to be compensated accordingly." <------ Aaron

Well as I recall you were not in favor of honoring UAW contracts.

You wanted concessions.

Why do you not want concessions from the hi-rollers?

I have not gone back and re-read your posts but that's the way I remember it.

So if you were in favor of honoring the UAW contracts then I will hold my fire on this you would have a legit argument.

But if $28 per hr. is too much for an assembly liner, then bi-crackie $2 or $3 million is too much bonus for the hi-rollers.

If you ask me, which no one did...

Yes, I said that if auto companies were to get government money then the UAW should have to offer concessions, as would every other aspect of GM and Chrysler including vendors, suppliers and management.

I never said I didn't want concessions for hi-rollers because in my mind, the question NEVER came up until after the fact. Regarding corporate bonuses, I said the government has no legal authority to withhold money from a legal contract and they certainly have no case in taxing the bonus after the fact to re-coup the money. Neither is right.

If what I supported were done, which was NO BAILOUT to begin with, no bonus money would have been paid because the company would be in bankruptcy right now. Restructuring would have been set by the court thus there would be a LEGAL avenue to avoid paying unwarranted bonuses to undeserving employees.

You're the one that kept telling us the sky was falling and we HAD to pass the bailouts NOW. It was your bunch that put the language in that allowed the bonuses to continue to be paid. The way I see it, if your bunch wanted concessions, they had the leverage to force them.

Why didn't they do that?