Cuomo's Brownshirts put squeeze on AIG

[Alt+F4]

The two of you would do well to read the link to the New York Times letter from a former AIG employee, that was provided on page 1 of this thread. He's a guy who had no part in AIG's financial troubles, and in fact made millions for the company. Now he stands to lose his bonus (probably well over half his salary) and he has state attorneys-general threatening him for the crime of... well, come to think of it, he's committed no crime.

I did read it. I too have contributed nothing to the downfall of my employer, I've worked very hard over the years yet now I am being asked to renenegotiate my legal contract and submit to give backs...or else.

The AIG guy mentioned that his bonus was about 700k so if that was half his salary he was pulling in 1.4 million a year. So even if he lost 90% of his salary he would still be making much more than the average NYCer (I'm assuming he's in NYC).

What would these same people be saying about these bonuses if there had been no bailout? Nothing, they would just have to suck it up, despite the contracts.

 

[BPSCG]

Beeps,

Has it occurred to you that the STATE may be cleaning up where the Federal Government has simply dropped the ball? This is not uncommon in our history.

Given that his tactics are creepily reminiscent of those of Elliott Spitzer, his predecessor as New York's attorney general, I am not inclined to attribute the most charitable of motivations to Andrew Cuomo.

Mr. Spitzer's recklessness with the state's highest elected office, though, is of a piece with his consistent excesses as Attorney General from 1999 to 2006.

He routinely used the extraordinary threat of indicting entire firms, a financial death sentence, to force the dismissal of executives, such as AIG's Maurice "Hank" Greenberg. He routinely leaked to the press emails obtained with subpoena power to build public animosity against companies and executives. In the case of Mr. Greenberg, he went on national television to accuse the AIG founder of "illegal" behavior. Within the confines of the law itself, though, he never indicted Mr. Greenberg. Nor did he apologize.

In perhaps the incident most suggestive of Mr. Spitzer's lack of self-restraint, the then-Attorney General personally threatened John Whitehead after the former Goldman Sachs chief published an article on this page defending Mr. Greenberg. "I will be coming after you," Mr. Spitzer said, according to Mr. Whitehead's account. "You will pay the price. This is only the beginning, and you will pay dearly for what you have done."


Jack Welch, the former head of GE, said he was told to tell Ken Langone -- embroiled in Mr. Spitzer's investigation of former NYSE chairman Dick Grasso -- that the AG would "put a spike through Langone's heart."

Link

Spitzer used that kind of demonization and appeals to the mob to get into the governor's office. Cuomo, it appears, is trying to do the same thing.

 

[leftysergeant]

HINT: Corporations are made up of people. As much as you don't like it, they have rights too.

So they get to vote twice, right? Get a clue.

The corporation is just there to do business. Giving it additional rights gives the shareholders rights that excede those of people who do not hold stock in any corporation.

Corporate personhood lets some real low lifes buy themselves extra right that other citrizens can't get by any means.

 

[Alt+F4]

Given that his tactics are creepily reminiscent of those of Elliott Spitzer.

Well if that's the case I hope Cuomo at least uses New York prostitutes instead of the international ones Spitzer used. Think job creation Andy!

 

[Cobalt]

So they get to vote twice, right? Get a clue.

The corporation is just there to do business. Giving it additional rights gives the shareholders rights that excede those of people who do not hold stock in any corporation.

Corporate personhood lets some real low lifes buy themselves extra right that other citrizens can't get by any means.

Get a brain. If your politician of choice doesn't have the spine to turn down corporate money or stand up to lobbyists, it isn't the corporations fault. You over simplify everything into "rich bad, poor good."

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Arresting anyone who does physical violence to an executive is all the protection they deserve under the constitution.

So in other words people that lefty doesn't like don't get free speech, due process, or protection under the fourth and fifth amendments.

As for further violations of the constitution, I have recommended none in the passage you quote.

Which is why I asked. And you admit that, in this case, you're going to appeal to a form of special pleading for why these individuals don't deserve

Corporations are not persons. Never have been, never deserve to be. The only right to which they are entitled is to own property and write contracts. Only thing they deserve or need.

Back here, in reality and not leftist woo-woo land, how does that work? And why does this sound like an attempt on your part to routinely violate the rights of the individuals who make up a corporation?

If it looks like they may be doing something shady, they should be subjected to the same sort of search to which a suspected child porn dealer is subjected.

Of course I agree. But back here, in reality and not leftist woo-woo land, prosecutors and detectives have to worry about a little thing called evidence. You keep demanding that the US government invade the privacy of private citizens based on some supposed misdeed but won't go so far as to cite any evidence or explain what this misdeed is. Which goes back to my statement that your ranting here is a lot of self-righteous BS.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Corporations used to be prohibited by law from making politcal donations. Some clerk at the Supreme Court diddled a record of a rulking and now people havbe the misguided notion that corporations have the same right of free speech that people do. Idiotic idea. Corporations can legally lie, even if it harms people, and they can sway elections by funding the corrupt politicians who will write the laws the corporations want.

Corporations exist only to do business. When they start to control us, it is time for them to disappear from the face of the earth.

So no one who is employed by a corporation has the right to donate, vote, or speak freely. Gotcha.

 

[Alt+F4]

I just read some of the comments posted to the AIG guy story at The Times, this one struck a cord with me:

I would like to hear where Mr. DeSantis stood on employee compensation in the US Auto industry. I probably shouldn't assume, but I'm guessing he -- like many on Wall Street and in the media (are you listening, Mr. Santelli?) thought the greedy line workers should "do their part" and allow the Big 3 to re-negotiate their contracts with the union. All that outrage over the $70/hour assembly worker, who never really existed anyway. Just doing a quick guesstimate, no way does $70/hour come any where close to Mr. DeSantis's $700K "retention fee."

So cry me a river, Mr. DeSantis. Very generous of you to donate your retention bonus to charity -- but I don't think you'd be doing that if you were underwater in your mortage and worried about COBRA payments and college tuition.

There really are Two Americas.

 

[Cobalt]

So no one who is employed by a corporation has the right to donate, vote, or speak freely. Gotcha.

Now you're getting it!

 

[Uzzy]

The misdeed is driving the world economy into the ground, thanks to the selling of subprime loans, which then got packaged in with various other good loans, and sold around the world to various institutions. When those subprime loans defaulted, various financial institutions around the world ended up with toxic debt mixed in with the good debt.

Now, you may be correct that the DoJ can't just drive in and take everything without evidence. But given that the US Government now own all the major banks, surely they could just voluntarily turn over all information on the relevant financial dealings to the DoJ, for a through investigation?

Incidentally, the attempts at smearing 'lefty woo-woo land' would probably work better had the bankers on wall street not driven the world economy into the ground. Kinda hard to argue in favour of that style of unrestrained capitalism nowadays.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I just read some of the comments posted to the AIG guy story at The Times, this one struck a cord with me:

I would like to hear where Mr. DeSantis stood on employee compensation in the US Auto industry. I probably shouldn't assume, but I'm guessing he -- like many on Wall Street and in the media (are you listening, Mr. Santelli?) thought the greedy line workers should "do their part" and allow the Big 3 to re-negotiate their contracts with the union. All that outrage over the $70/hour assembly worker, who never really existed anyway. Just doing a quick guesstimate, no way does $70/hour come any where close to Mr. DeSantis's $700K "retention fee."

I'd say that the $70/hour comes no where near $700K. The only assembly line worker for the Big 3 is severely underpaid IMO.

So cry me a river, Mr. DeSantis. Very generous of you to donate your retention bonus to charity -- but I don't think you'd be doing that if you were underwater in your mortage and worried about COBRA payments and college tuition.

There really are Two Americas.

Of course he's well off, my question is "so what?" Is the writer of this article seriously suggesting that people aren't entitled to what they were agreed to be paid based solely on the fact that they're wealthy?

 

[Cobalt]

Incidentally, the attempts at smearing 'lefty woo-woo land' would probably work better had the bankers on wall street not driven the world economy into the ground. Kinda hard to argue in favour of that style of unrestrained capitalism nowadays.

Good thing we have all those examples of communism working to follow, then.

 

[Uzzy]

Good thing we have all those examples of communism working to follow, then.

Sweet Zombie Jesus. I'd hate to be advocating communism. That's been proven to not work either, you know.

There is, however, a world of difference between capitalism and unrestrained greed (or, for that matter, socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, which is very strong in the US right now.). An actual capitalist system would have let AIG collapse.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Incidentally, the attempts at smearing 'lefty woo-woo land' would probably work better had the bankers on wall street not driven the world economy into the ground. Kinda hard to argue in favour of that style of unrestrained capitalism nowadays.

For the record, my political beliefs hover somewhere around classical liberalism and little "l" libertarianism. And who exactly is arguing for unrestrained capitalism? I don't recall anyone here saying that they want zero regulation and accountibility for corporations. Rather they seem to be arguing for effective regulations and practical accountibility which follows and observes the laws and constitution of the United States, rather than just heaping new laws on top of the old ones or going on political witchhunts.

I have a question to some people here. AIG Financial Product is a London based branch of AIG is considered one of the key downfall areas of the credit crisis. Does anyone here even know if AIGFP executives actually received bonuses or are those of you calling for the heads of AIG executives just hearing AIG and naturally assume "star-spawn beyond hell here to drive us all mad and devour our souls (money)"?

 

[Cobalt]

Sweet Zombie Jesus. I'd hate to be advocating communism. That's been proven to not work either, you know.

You're my kinda people. Anyone who says "Sweet Zombie Jesus" is probably good folk.

There is, however, a world of difference between capitalism and unrestrained greed (or, for that matter, socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, which is very strong in the US right now.). An actual capitalist system would have let AIG collapse.

Indeed, and it should have.

 

[dudalb]

If the AIG guys are guilty of fraud or other illegal activities, throw the book at them. If incompetent, then they should never see the inside of a executive suite again.
The problem I have is the lynch mob atmosphere I see about this.

 

[leftysergeant]

So no one who is employed by a corporation has the right to donate, vote, or speak freely. Gotcha.

As individuals, they have. Screw the corporation, as a single entity with the rights of a citizen, beyond what it needs to do its business.

Incorporation exists only to enable a company to exercise property rights and to accept responsibilities for any wrong doing. Thje individuals who own shares are exempt from prosecution for misdeeds of the corporation in which they had no direct role. If the corporation is given any further rights, you are creating an amoral entity with the same rights as a citizen, but without the moral restraints placed on a citizen by human nature.

Corporations with a lot of money have a lot of power, and are not really entitled to that power by any measure that I can find in the constitution. They were, originally, subject to a lot of restraints to which individual citizens were not suject, for the purpose of regulating commerce, and could be liquidated if they did not obey the law, or operated in an unethical manner.
A shareholder could lose money, but not be punished criminally.

Believe it or not, you are not entitled to make money unethicly.

 

[Texas]

I did read it. I too have contributed nothing to the downfall of my employer, I've worked very hard over the years yet now I am being asked to renenegotiate my legal contract and submit to give backs...or else.

The AIG guy mentioned that his bonus was about 700k so if that was half his salary he was pulling in 1.4 million a year. So even if he lost 90% of his salary he would still be making much more than the average NYCer (I'm assuming he's in NYC).

What would these same people be saying about these bonuses if there had been no bailout? Nothing, they would just have to suck it up, despite the contracts.

You also have the right to vote down the concessions so your point is a strawman. You also are not required to work for a dollar a year until your contract is finished to get paid so once again you are pitching straw.

 

[Alt+F4]

Is the writer of this article seriously suggesting that people aren't entitled to what they were agreed to be paid based solely on the fact that they're wealthy?

My take on it is that some contracts are more sacred than others. Municipal employee and auto industry contracts can be messed with based solely on the fact that they're not wealthy.

 

[leftysergeant]

Of course he's well off, my question is "so what?" Is the writer of this article seriously suggesting that people aren't entitled to what they were agreed to be paid based solely on the fact that they're wealthy?

If it is ethical to let corporations in financial trouble default on production workers' pensions, what is unethical about cutting off golden parachutes for management?