Cuomo's Brownshirts put squeeze on AIG

[mhaze]

My understanding is that many of those executives who were present or in part responsible for the situation at AIG have already left and that those executives there now turned down offers from other companies under the premise that AIG would honor their contracts. I suppose in the mindset of the communist it's simply more beneficial to have a sacrificial lamb and make someone pay while denouncing everyone as a common "thug" or "punk" instead of rationally looking at the payments in a case-by-case basis, no instead it's simply much better to tax as a form of punishment. Or, for that matter, respecting the law and the constitution of the United States.

Gee....where did all that argument from ridicule in the first part of this thread go to? All that seems left is Lefty...

 

[leftysergeant]

those who gamble with other people's wealth, i.e., investment managers, get protected.

A contract to gamble is valid.

Bollocks.

You owe a working man every bloody cent you promised him. Speculators deserve what they get if, and only IF, they have done something for somone.


If you gamble and lose, bend over and take it. you still owe laborers for any services rendered, every dime of it, before any of your investors or managers get their unearned share of what is left of the company. That includes old age pensions. Just putting up with the crap that the investor class habds a working man should be compensated. Do you think that working people would have any reason to sit there and take the abuse if they could not count on a comfortable old age?

The investor class are a breed apart from working people. Their reward is in the risk, the thrill of the game. Don't tell a worn-out, weary old man about to retire that, "Hey, sometimes you win, some times you lose. Get back in the game."

These people have had their fun and it is time they started taking their lumps like responsible grown-ups. Reagan is dead and his policies are starting to smell like his corpse as well.

 

[BPSCG]

Gee....where did all that argument from ridicule in the first part of this thread go to? All that seems left is Lefty...

And speaking of ridiculous...

Speculators deserve what they get if, and only IF, they have done something for somone.

You obviously did not read that earlier link to the New York Times letter. Jake DeSantis, the author, who is leaving AIG, made millions of dollars for the company, and had nothing to do with the credit default swaps that got it in trouble. His bonuses were predicated on his making money for the company, which he did. But worthies such as Barney Frank and Andrew Cuomo see that there's ballot-box gold to be mined in demonizing DeSantis and others like him.

DeSantis, of course, is not a Working Class Hero; he's a maggot, and thus deserves leftysergeant's contempt, and the loss of the money he has earned.

The investor class are a breed apart from working people. Their reward is in the risk, the thrill of the game.

Yes, every time the investor goes to the grocery store, he takes out pieces of paper from his wallet worth fifty risk credits or a hundred thrill-of-the-game credits and hands them to the cashier.

What an asinine statement. Every time I think you couldn't say anything stupider, you prove me wrong. I eagerly await the day I see you post, "Watch me jam this pencil into my eye..."

 

[Darat]

To all participants: Drop the personal attacks, insults and other breaches of your Membership Agreement otherwise face suspension.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[leftysergeant]

DeSantis, of course, is not a Working Class Hero; he's a maggot, and thus deserves leftysergeant's contempt, and the loss of the money he has earned.

If he kept money paid to him by a company that had no money of its own, which had lost other people's money playing idiot games, he is a maggot. If he turns it back to the government or places it in the hands of an agency that is doing something worthwhile for the country, he is a rational human being with morals.

Yes, every time the investor goes to the grocery store, he takes out pieces of paper from his wallet worth fifty risk credits or a hundred thrill-of-the-game credits and hands them to the cashier.

He hands over credits for what someone else produced on his behalf, or that he stole from some poor schlub who actually thought that his financial instruments represented an actual thing of value. In neither case did he neccessarily create wealth. He does owe the people who produced the things of value from which his own wealth is derived for their contributions to his well-being. If that leaves him with zero profit, he is too stupid a twit to be in business in the first palce. If you cannot pay your wqorkers, you have no right to trick them into working for you in the first place. And you have no right to expect them to work for less than a living wage, regardless how large a segment of the investor class has joined with you to artificially suppress wages and steal labor.

What an asinine statement. Every time I think you couldn't say anything stupider, you prove me wrong. I eagerly await the day I see you post, "Watch me jam this pencil into my eye..."

I can never beat the stupidity of the investor class mantra that THEY create wealth.

 

[Cobalt]

If he kept money paid to him by a company that had no money of its own, which had lost other people's money playing idiot games, he is a maggot. If he turns it back to the government or places it in the hands of an agency that is doing something worthwhile for the country, he is a rational human being with morals.

And those are the ONLY two options, naturally.

He hands over credits for what someone else produced on his behalf, or that he stole from some poor schlub who actually thought that his financial instruments represented an actual thing of value. In neither case did he neccessarily create wealth. He does owe the people who produced the things of value from which his own wealth is derived for their contributions to his well-being. If that leaves him with zero profit, he is too stupid a twit to be in business in the first palce. If you cannot pay your wqorkers, you have no right to trick them into working for you in the first place. And you have no right to expect them to work for less than a living wage, regardless how large a segment of the investor class has joined with you to artificially suppress wages and steal labor.

How the hell do you steal labor, put a gun to someone's head? And you can't seriously believe that the "investor class" sits around just pondering how to keep the little guy down. But I'll let you in on a little secret. Most of the time, the people in the worker class or lower, the ones that don't ever move up in class, aren't making good enough decisions to get themselves out of there. It isn't the evil, filthy rich people who, barring lottery winners and kids who inherit things, kept making the right decisions for themselves to get where they are now. You can feel all high and mighty that you're standing up for the little guy, but know this, you're being used since the little guy doesn't always stand up for himself in the first place.

I can never beat the stupidity of the investor class mantra that THEY create wealth.

Just keep on hating the rich. Whatever lets you sleep at night.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Sorry, but without the bailouts, these companies were bankrupt. If you have a contract with a bankrupt company, you get in line with the rest of the creditors.

And the smoke-up-the-skirt move of getting them to work for a buck in order to sell it to the public and Congress is just nonsense. "Here you do like me and work for a token dollar a year, and we'll take care of you later, wink wink."

I do not, however, agree with naming names and stalking them. People want to go after the folks who did this, head for Washington. Obama has padded Treasure and the Fed with some of the worst of the old guard.

Oh, and the good news this week? Well, it seems that last month's mere 580,000 new unemployed indicates that it's not getting worse. ABC News had some analyst on who said that often these things hit a bottom and flatten out for a while.

Excellent, dude!

So we'll just have a half-a-million people per month lose their jobs over the next.... what? Half year? Year?

 

[leftysergeant]

And those are the ONLY two options, naturally.

How the hell do you steal labor, put a gun to someone's head?

No. You get togethger and agree that the working class has to accept slow starvation or quick. Usually, the working class opts to survive, even if it is a mean and risky sort of survival.

And you can't seriously believe that the "investor class" sits around just pondering how to keep the little guy down.

Yes. It's called the GOP.

But I'll let you in on a little secret. Most of the time, the people in the worker class or lower, the ones that don't ever move up in class, aren't making good enough decisions to get themselves out of there.

Oh. puleeeeze! Get it through your head. Resources are finite. If one class of people get control of the finite resources, they can crowd others out of competition.

I know a hell of a lot of working people who worked hard all their lives, had supposedl;y guaranteed pensions, and got kicked to the curb because the counmtry is run by idiots who think that the survival of a company is more important than honoring a commitment to working people to pay a pension. You're gooing top tell me, maybe, that the idea is not to be working-class? Get some human values. We can't all be investors and some of us acvtually would rather create real wealth than the sham of wealth that our new investor class so lusts after. Working class peoiple are real people, all of them worth something.

The death of half of the investor class would leave the world in no worse shape than it is in now, maybe better. The death of half the workling class would leave us all starving and naked.

You can feel all high and mighty that you're standing up for the little guy, but know this, you're being used since the little guy doesn't always stand up for himself in the first place.

I'm standing up to the lazy maggots who think that the people who create their wealth should sacrifice when times get tough so that the invcestor class does not.

The investor class is just there to move the credits for wealth created to places where other working people can create more wealth. When it ceases to perform that functiuon, it is uselss or worse and needs to be brought back in line. Time for the investor class to learn their pace in the scheme of things.

 

[Cobalt]

No. You get togethger and agree that the working class has to accept slow starvation or quick. Usually, the working class opts to survive, even if it is a mean and risky sort of survival.

Uh huh....

Yes. It's called the GOP.

That's classic. You must be a troll.

Oh. puleeeeze! Get it through your head. Resources are finite.

Is that fact?!

If one class of people get control of the finite resources, they can crowd others out of competition.

Hint, just because something CAN happen, doesn't mean it DOES happen.

I know a hell of a lot of working people who worked hard all their lives, had supposedl;y guaranteed pensions, and got kicked to the curb because the counmtry is run by idiots who think that the survival of a company is more important than honoring a commitment to working people to pay a pension.

Sucks for them. What exactly is demanding people give money to the government going to accomplish? [/quote]

You're gooing top tell me, maybe, that the idea is not to be working-class?

Or maybe, if you're poor, don't do the stupid **** that keeps you from actually doing something with your life.

Get some human values.

Yes, master. How else should I live my life? I'm so terribly sorry I don't fall to my ****ing knees and cry every time some guy in a factory loses his job. **** happens to people.

We can't all be investors and some of us acvtually would rather create real wealth than the sham of wealth that our new investor class so lusts after.

Okay, I'm asking you honestly now, how exactly does the working class create wealth? Or do you mean that the working class provides items or services that can be exchanged for wealth?

Working class peoiple are real people, all of them worth something.

And people with large amounts of money aren't? And I'm the one who lacks values?

The death of half of the investor class would leave the world in no worse shape than it is in now, maybe better.

Uh huh. How do you figure, sports fan?

The death of half the workling class would leave us all starving and naked.

Uh huh. How do you figure, sports fan?

I'm standing up to the lazy maggots who think that the people who create their wealth should sacrifice when times get tough so that the invcestor class does not.

As much as it irks you, just because you don't lay bricks or flip burgers doesn't mean you aren't working. Get over it, kiddo.

The investor class is just there to move the credits for wealth created to places where other working people can create more wealth. When it ceases to perform that functiuon, it is uselss or worse and needs to be brought back in line. Time for the investor class to learn their pace in the scheme of things.

I'd like to reiterate my question. Explain exactly how the working class creates wealth.

 

[Alt+F4]

AIG would not have been able to pay these bonuses if it had not gotten the bailout money. So much for these contracts.

Folks who work under labor contracts are often asked to renegotiate them when the organization is in trouble. Why one set of rules for different professions?

 

[Upchurch]

I'll grant you that I haven't looked into this at all, but I don't understand the concept of being contractually obligated to pay a bonus. If it is in your contract, it is part of your regular compensation and not a bonus. If it were promised as a part of specific criteria that was met despite the company being run into the ground, what freakin' moron came up with the criteria? If it is discretionary bonuses, it isn't obligatory.

I don't get it.

 

[mhaze]

I'll grant you that I haven't looked into this at all, but I don't understand the concept of being contractually obligated to pay a bonus. If it is in your contract, it is part of your regular compensation and not a bonus. If it were promised as a part of specific criteria that was met despite the company being run into the ground, what freakin' moron came up with the criteria? If it is discretionary bonuses, it isn't obligatory.

I don't get it.

In the weird world of investment bankers, 80% of pay can/was easily bonuses. So it is commonly in many sales positions. These AIG bonuses were specifically authorized in the $787B stimulus bill. If someone had came up and say "Look, we'll bail out out, but you have to make big cuts here, here and here, and in bonuses" that would be different, wouldn't it? They did exactly the opposite, codified the bonuses into law. Now they have to deal with it. Now who should you get mad at? Not AIG, but the clowns who made this deal - in your favorite pristine administration. Want names?

AIG would not have been able to pay these bonuses if it had not gotten the bailout money. So much for these contracts.

Folks who work under labor contracts are often asked to renegotiate them when the organization is in trouble. Why one set of rules for different professions?

Reasonable question. "Asking" is quite different than inflaming public opinion by public statements from the administration, calling for inquiries, being complacent while AIG executives get death threats to their homes, find angry mobs of thugs protesting outside their homes and screaming at them, and find themselves plastered in the negative on every media outlet.

• Aside from this being classic disinformation and misdirection.
• Aside from it being pressure and intimidation tactics.
• Aside from a complacent look-the-other way administration ignoring the pressure and intimidation tactics when they serve it's purpose.
• Aside from the clear unconstitutionality of the 90% tax plan.
• Aside from the grouping of all AIG, 95% of which is people who have consistently done a great job, with the 5% in the derivatives group.

You've been given by a previous poster the specific phraseology about contracts from the Constution, and I've asked any here to rebut the contractual need to pay the AIG bonuses and the inability of the US Government to be involved with legal code sections. You've got the full group of interpretations of the Constitution to work with, 200 years worth.

Go!

 

[Metullus]

I'll grant you that I haven't looked into this at all, but I don't understand the concept of being contractually obligated to pay a bonus. If it is in your contract, it is part of your regular compensation and not a bonus. If it were promised as a part of specific criteria that was met despite the company being run into the ground, what freakin' moron came up with the criteria? If it is discretionary bonuses, it isn't obligatory.

I don't get it.

In my early life I worked under contracts that included completion bonuses. In those contracts I was awarded a bonus that often amounted to 50% or more of my total compensation if, and only if, I completed the contract - in other words, as long as I did not quit or was not fired for cause during the contract period. My bonus had nothing to do with the performance of the company.

Later in my career I worked under other bonus arrangements, few of which were tied to the profitability of the company overall. Bonuses were normally awarded based upon the performance of the particular profit center for which I worked, or even on a project by project basis. On two occasions I was assigned projects that were already so deeply in the red that there was no hope of them breaking even much less making a profit. In those instances I worked under a bonus structure that rewarded me for limiting the losses - without such a bonus structure there would have been little incentive for me to undertake what was from the beginning a thankless task.

I do not know how AIG's contracts were structured or who was being paid bonuses or for what they were being paid. I do know that it is possible that bonuses might well be righteously and fairly earned even in a faltering company.

 

[Donal]

So, the guys who actually made AIG profitable until the crash, were making people's pensions and 401(k)s, by all accounts acted ethically, and are now tasked with fixing the company so it can be profitable enough to pay back its bailout are getting <.1% of said bailout?

The outrage is because...

 

[ZirconBlue]

I'll grant you that I haven't looked into this at all, but I don't understand the concept of being contractually obligated to pay a bonus. If it is in your contract, it is part of your regular compensation and not a bonus. If it were promised as a part of specific criteria that was met despite the company being run into the ground, what freakin' moron came up with the criteria? If it is discretionary bonuses, it isn't obligatory.

I don't get it.

These "retention bonuses" are used to give valued employees an incentive to stay with the company for a certain period of time. Usually this is during difficult financial times or during an aquisition or other transition where people are more likely to leave, and where said people leaving would create more problems. The contract would then stipulate that as long as you stay through X date you get the bonus.

Really, "bonus" in this case is something of a misnomer. As I understand it, these people also had a performance-based bonus program, but those bonuses were not paid out, due to the financial performance of the company. (At least, that's what was stated on an NPR story on this issue last week. I don't have any documentation of that.)

 

[Cleon]

So, the guys who actually made AIG profitable until the crash, were making people's pensions and 401(k)s, by all accounts acted ethically, and are now tasked with fixing the company so it can be profitable enough to pay back its bailout are getting <.1% of said bailout?

The outrage is because...

...because people want a scapegoat.

That's really all there is to it.

 

[rwguinn]

These "retention bonuses" are used to give valued employees an incentive to stay with the company for a certain period of time. Usually this is during difficult financial times or during an aquisition or other transition where people are more likely to leave, and where said people leaving would create more problems. The contract would then stipulate that as long as you stay through X date you get the bonus.

Really, "bonus" in this case is something of a misnomer. As I understand it, these people also had a performance-based bonus program, but those bonuses were not paid out, due to the financial performance of the company. (At least, that's what was stated on an NPR story on this issue last week. I don't have any documentation of that.)

The NFL, ML Baseball, NBA, NHL call the "Roster Bonus". They are part of the contract--If you're on the team at "X" date, you get paid. If not, you don't.

 

[mhaze]

Permit me to adjust my prior comments a bit. I may have been too aggressive in my attitude. Consider the following.

95% of AIG are good people, 5% are, let us say, "BAD". We all likely agree there.

The contracts to pay bonuses come up. OUTRAGE! OUTRAGE!

Now, what is our goal? Is it to destroy the company that "we" (Collectively, I wouldn't have bailed them) are trying to give continued life to through bailouts?

If destruction is your goal, then vent your outrage on the rank and file of AIG.

That is the circus act being directed by the adminstration, whether purposeful or unwittingly. If I had to guess I'd say they were just plain clueless.

If constructive help and putting the company back on their feet is the goal, pay them liberally, separate out the "BAD" group and deal with it as required.

This to me is a variation of the "I'll fight for your constitutional rights no matter I hate you" cases.

 

[Stacko]

The NFL, ML Baseball, NBA, NHL call the "Roster Bonus". They are part of the contract--If you're on the team at "X" date, you get paid. If not, you don't.

I'm pretty sure only the NFL has roster bonuses since they're the only one of those sports that doesn't have guaranteed contracts.

 

[joobie]

Argument by repetition.

well, what do you want? it's a stupid analogy.