If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KNBC 4 Los Angeles)   Obama vows to block AIG bonuses   (nbclosangeles.com) divider line 640
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

14083 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Mar 2009 at 3:44 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



640 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-16 05:00:01 PM  
Hmm, does the bonus have to be cash? Does it specify cash?

Maybe give them some worthless stock?
 
2009-03-16 05:00:31 PM  
Nabb1: I don't know. It seemed odd to go back to some tangential comment from hours ago.

Well, I mean...that's what we were talking about. It does seem kinda odd that he would reference something that we were talking about?

As for the "you guys" issue, if you lumped me in, I said it sounded like he had a contract with an at-will provision. I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive.

Who is he?

Obdicut was making the point that you can't know what is in their contract. So, making the statement that Obama can't do anything is an assumption when you don't know the entire contract.

It may be a long shot and it may not be a valid path, but you can't know until someone looks in to all the legal avenues related to solving the problem. This is, in fact, what Obama seems to be saying.
 
2009-03-16 05:00:34 PM  
They could just fire them and hire a lot of good unemployed accountants and MBA's. Unless they can prove their contention that Accounting, Algebra, Geometry, Aristotelian Logic, Calculus and various Insurance metrics (Actuaries, Risk Assessment, etc.) are "hoaxes".
Fifteen years ago, if someone told me an Insurance company was LOSING money, I'd just say "you're f***ing with me.". They're supposed to have the scales tilted outrageously against payoff.
They've defied a previously universal Economic assumption - Insurance companies CAN'T lose money.
Then again, Donald Trump astounded Economists by proving what was formerly assumed impossible - a CASINO that LOSES MONEY (causing everyone in Las Vegas to say "how the f**k can you even to that?"):
Link

Soon other assumptions about our reality - speed of light/sound, gravity, two objects cannot occupy the same space, etc. - may fall apart as well.

But if I had an offer to be paid huge sums of money to financially hose up a corporation, I'll start tomorrow. At Wal Mart.
 
2009-03-16 05:01:57 PM  
I say we identify all the people who took the bonuses and eat them as barbecue.
 
2009-03-16 05:02:01 PM  
Yeah_Right: I don't remember which Sunday morning program it was... but there was one of the Obama Admin Officials talking about how 'getting out the pitchforks and guillotines' won't solve the problem..."

Oh yeah...? Let's give it a whirl.... and see.


They have perfectly good windows they should be jumping out of for our enjoyment.

Yeah_Right: I can see why these 'execs' are saying they are 'entitled' to the 'bonuses.'

It's all about entitlement to these guys...
 
2009-03-16 05:02:07 PM  
GaryPDX: I predict great suffering in the future.

Don't be so hard on yourself.
 
2009-03-16 05:02:15 PM  
QFT:

Aarontology:
Revenge of John Gault: The face of the Bush/Obama corporate welfare state

Translation: "I supported Bush for eight years, realized how unpopular he was, and now I'm trying to associate his failure with President Obama because I'm too much of a pussy to come out and say I was wrong"


(applies to jdmac (R-knobgobbler) as well)
 
2009-03-16 05:03:00 PM  
ronaprhys: yes, that would be Bush

I hate to go tit-for-tat on this, but I really think that if anyone was going to be able to get at this level of "conditioning" the bailout money, it would've been Obama. First, because it was a cash payment in exchange for which we didn't get anything else in return, and second, because by the time the Obama payment came along, we'd had months to figure out that putting some cash in, no matter that it's a huge sum, was going to let AIG return to business as usual.

But personally, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, the right move, if you don't like what the private parties worked out among themselves, was to let AIG drop like a stone until it wound up in the world's most complex bankruptcy matter, where all these contracts could be worked out.
 
2009-03-16 05:03:07 PM  
Screw the AIG bonuses - is this a good time to buy Spiders?
 
2009-03-16 05:03:21 PM  
Fart_Machine: GaryPDX: I predict great suffering in the future.

Don't be so hard on yourself.


Not for me..lol. My Zombie Defense Plan is formidable.
 
2009-03-16 05:03:36 PM  
bulldg4life: I know of no one that posts regularly on this site that is capable of reasoned debate on a consistent basis

I'm sure many of us are capable. I could, but why? But SERIOUSLY, fark is NOT the place for reasoned debate, especially not on a consistent basis
 
2009-03-16 05:04:28 PM  
I sure hope Obama rolls back those government employees pay raises and bonuses. That outfit hasn't made any money in over 10 years.
 
2009-03-16 05:04:39 PM  
eightzero: The Contracts Clause of the contitution is probably relevant. But the power of Congress to tax is plenary. Any reason Congress can't tax these bonuses at, say, 100%?

Not if they pass a bill.
 
2009-03-16 05:04:44 PM  
plewis: I say we identify all the people who took the bonuses and eat them as barbecue.

A Brazen Bull party perhaps?

www.scrubbingup.com
 
2009-03-16 05:04:45 PM  
plewis: I say we identify all the people who took the bonuses and eat them as barbecue.

Well, we do own a chunk of this company now, right?

Do we get a list?
 
2009-03-16 05:05:14 PM  
So it's okay to rework the contracts of autoworkers but somehow an AIG worker's contract is inviolable? C'mon. This is really an issue of willpower. The AIG CEO should write a memo to all staff to the effect that, ahem, "since we lost $62 billion in the 4th quarter of 2008, almost single-handedly have destroyed the American economy and taxpayers now own 80% of our company, we must ask all employees to forego their bonuses this year..." Then, just DO IT. Disgruntled AIG employees always have the option of quitting and working elsewhere, if they can find somewhere else to work and there's anyone insane enough to hire them. Otherwise, they just have to suck it up.

Of course, my premise is based on the assumption that AIG leadership would pursue this issue in a somewhat rational fashion.

I say turn those contracts over to DOJ and let them find the loopholes. I am incredulous that there isn't any clause that would allow the withholding of bonuses based on exigent circumstances.

It's time to stop treating the "Masters of the Universe" like they are MOTUs. They are, in fact, robber barons who deserve the same treatment as any other garden-variety thief.
 
2009-03-16 05:05:28 PM  
bulldg4life: lunchinlewis: Where did I post that having a contract nullified the idea of being fired at any point for any reason?

I'm sorry. Do you not like being part of the "you guys" reference?

Didn't know you were going to freak out about that part.


So in other words, nowhere.

Now, who exactly is arguing this so called point you keep referring to? You know, I even told him to go talk to his HR, because without him giving us details of his employment agreement, they would be the best people to explain it to him.
 
2009-03-16 05:06:10 PM  
GaryPDX: Not for me..lol. My Zombie Defense Plan is formidable.

That's crazy. Everyone knows that zombies can't play defense...

GaryPDX: A Brazen Bull party perhaps?

Hmm...as long as we use hickory chips.
 
2009-03-16 05:07:01 PM  
Snowflake Tubbybottom: I sure hope Obama rolls back those government employees pay raises and bonuses. That outfit hasn't made any money in over 10 years.

This.
 
2009-03-16 05:07:03 PM  
lunchinlewis: So in other words, nowhere.

As I said before, I grabbed the post that stated what obdicut has been pointing out for a few hours. You can settle down if you feel you've been improperly lumped in to "you guys".

Now, who exactly is arguing this so called point you keep referring to?

Have you not been reading the thread?
 
2009-03-16 05:08:54 PM  
smallerGov: Snowflake Tubbybottom: I sure hope Obama rolls back those government employees pay raises and bonuses. That outfit hasn't made any money in over 10 years.

This.


Bullshiat. They've made PLENTY of money. Where do you think we got all those new colorful bills from?
 
2009-03-16 05:10:34 PM  
FTA...
Frank said he was disgusted, asserting that "these bonuses are going to people who screwed this thing up enormously."

Is Barney Frank getting a bonus?
 
2009-03-16 05:11:16 PM  
bulldg4life: Obdicut was making the point that you can't know what is in their contract. So, making the statement that Obama can't do anything is an assumption when you don't know the entire contract.

Based on everything I've seen, heard, and read, it seems rather clear that these bonuses are contractual obligations. I'm comfortable operating on that assumption until proven otherwise, which, incidentally, wouldn't upset me that much.

It may be a long shot and it may not be a valid path, but you can't know until someone looks in to all the legal avenues related to solving the problem. This is, in fact, what Obama seems to be saying.

Perhaps, but I think he could do a better job of not getting anyone's hopes up.
 
2009-03-16 05:11:31 PM  
Its time for some serious AIG damage control here... Bear with me on this, if they don't start looking responsible and contrite the public is going to start firebombing AIG's offices and homes of the execs.

If they don't and the public doesn't -- I will be the first with Molotov cocktail in hand.

Grin.

Meet the new secretary of Up against the wall motherfarkers!
 
2009-03-16 05:12:11 PM  
www.sfurbanmoto.com

I just like that image... linked like the surface temp of our rear Yokahama slick this past weekend.
 
2009-03-16 05:12:57 PM  
jdmac: Fascism looks great at the beginning. Only when we realize that government has taken over the major industries in this country will we notice that we do not live in a free country anymore.

If I was contractually owed money for meeting specific performance standards and the government decided that I was not going to get paid simply so the president can do some political pandering, how can that not be seen as fascism?



yes B-Rock, yes you did. Other than the Great Depression, every recession we have had in the last hundred years corrected itself within a year. What the current economic crisis has in common with the Great Depression is the fact that both were exacerbated by extensive government intervention.

Economic retraction is a reality of any market and the more you fight what the market wants, the worse it gets. We need to hit the bottom and start rebuilding, however this culture of corporate welfare pushed by the Bush/Obama economic policy is making things worse.


WOW Obama is sooo powerful he caused the economic downfall BEFORE he came into office. That's sooo cool.
 
2009-03-16 05:15:00 PM  
Sunbeam: "since we lost $62 billion in the 4th quarter of 2008, almost single-handedly have destroyed the American economy and taxpayers now own 80% of our company, we must ask all employees to forego their bonuses this year..."

PLEASE, people, let's not lose sight of how we got here. Sure, AIG lost bigtime on credit default swaps, and that's had massive repercussions throughout the world economy. But the CDS's were only bad because they were backed by lousy mortgage debt. This is still a crisis that, at its origins, centered on artificially inflated housing prices and a mortgage lending system that (1) refused to admit that there were some people that shouldn't have massive mortgages, and (2) promoted the institutionalization of all risk such that the ultimate failure was automatically to become systemic.

It's not the evil bankers who did this. It's not that, all of a sudden, Wall Street got "greedy." Hell, they've been greedy for longer than I've been alive.

It's the damned mortgage loan officers, bank regulators, Fannie and Freddie, the Chris Dodds of the world and, yes, those idiots that took out $500k loans on a $200k property. Please direct your outrage (and pitchforks) accordingly.
 
2009-03-16 05:15:13 PM  
CodeFooTyping: FTA...
Frank said he was disgusted, asserting that "these bonuses are going to people who screwed this thing up enormously."

Is Barney Frank getting a bonus?


Yes. His will come in right after the Bush Administration's
 
2009-03-16 05:15:30 PM  
If I told you what it takes to reach the highest heights, you';d laugh and say nothing's that simple..

..but you've been told many times before, messiahs pointed to the door but no one had the guts to leave the temple.
 
2009-03-16 05:16:57 PM  
Sunbeam: So it's okay to rework the contracts of autoworkers but somehow an AIG worker's contract is inviolable?

I think if you check you'll find that the UAW voluntarily submitted to the modifications of its workers' contracts. There's a distinction in there. I can explain if you think it's necessary.
 
2009-03-16 05:17:06 PM  
This threads needs more Fluffy:

img216.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-16 05:17:16 PM  
bunner: If I told you what it takes to reach the highest heights, you';d laugh and say nothing's that simple..

..but you've been told many times before, messiahs pointed to the door but no one had the guts to leave the temple.


At least I finally have a DECENT song stuck in my head from Fark for once...
 
2009-03-16 05:17:34 PM  
Nabb1: He said it doesn't bother him and when he said he had gone by it before I thought it was rather amusing. It's meant in good fun.

I don't feel it's meant in good fun, by the way. It just doesn't bother me. I don't think anyone reading your Boobies to me would feel it was in good fun, either.

Nabb1: I said it sounded like he had a contract with an at-will provision. I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive

You previously stated that they are.

A contract employee is not an "at will" employee. That's the whole point of having a contract. The contract defines the employment relationship between the parties.

Though this may be simply that for some reason you're not defining an employment agreement between employee and employer as a contract, even though it is a legally binding contract.
 
2009-03-16 05:17:44 PM  
All Apologies: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Kinda late with this bs. The farking horse is already out of the dam barn genius.

How hard can it be to have some safety and controls BEFORE they get the farking money????? DUH!



/Change is all you have left.

You'll have to ask the Administration that bailed them out, which is not the current Administration.


Well then I'm sure the current one has not handed out a nickel without said controls....you have the citation for that, right? And I'm sure a certain former Senator from Illinois voted against the AIG bailout for lacking same, right?
Hello? Hellooo...hellooo...Is this thing on?
 
2009-03-16 05:18:00 PM  
gallo caldo: Sunbeam: "since we lost $62 billion in the 4th quarter of 2008, almost single-handedly have destroyed the American economy and taxpayers now own 80% of our company, we must ask all employees to forego their bonuses this year..."

PLEASE, people, let's not lose sight of how we got here. Sure, AIG lost bigtime on credit default swaps, and that's had massive repercussions throughout the world economy. But the CDS's were only bad because they were backed by lousy mortgage debt. This is still a crisis that, at its origins, centered on artificially inflated housing prices and a mortgage lending system that (1) refused to admit that there were some people that shouldn't have massive mortgages, and (2) promoted the institutionalization of all risk such that the ultimate failure was automatically to become systemic.

It's not the evil bankers who did this. It's not that, all of a sudden, Wall Street got "greedy." Hell, they've been greedy for longer than I've been alive.

It's the damned mortgage loan officers, bank regulators, Fannie and Freddie, the Chris Dodds of the world and, yes, those idiots that took out $500k loans on a $200k property. Please direct your outrage (and pitchforks) accordingly.


Are you serious?
 
2009-03-16 05:18:03 PM  
bulldg4life: Have you not been reading the thread?

Yeah but you know, some of us live outside of the thread and have done some looking around at the details. Aside from some anecdotal story about one person's employment agreement, I see little refuting the statements coming from Frank and my recollection of Holder's comment that the bonuses not recoverable.
 
2009-03-16 05:19:26 PM  
If the lawsuits are a worry, can't Congress pass a bill shielding AIG from them?
 
2009-03-16 05:19:41 PM  
lunchinlewis: Aside from some anecdotal story about one person's employment agreement, I see little refuting the statements coming from Frank and my recollection of Holder's comment that the bonuses not recoverable.

ok?

Congrats on that.
 
2009-03-16 05:21:10 PM  
I wonder how much of the total is going to people with a salary greater than 100k. Wouldn't it be somewhat ironic if he blocks bonuses going to lower or middle income employees at the company?
 
2009-03-16 05:21:34 PM  
If the lawsuits are a worry, can't Congress pass a bill shielding AIG from them?

To elaborate on what I said, if Congress can shield law-breaking telecoms from wiretapping lawsuits, why can't they do something similar for AIG?
 
2009-03-16 05:22:04 PM  
lunchinlewis: Yeah but you know, some of us live outside of the thread and have done some looking around at the details. Aside from some anecdotal story about one person's employment agreement, I see little refuting the statements coming from Frank and my recollection of Holder's comment that the bonuses not recoverable.

Well, the point of my story is that all employment agreements are contracts, so saying someone is contractually owed a bonus does not mean that you necessarily can't threaten them with termination if they take the bonus.

Them having a contract that specifies an amount of time they're employed for, or other circumstances (so that they're not an "at-will" employee, which is the default in New York) would mean you couldn't threaten that. Unless the contract was a yearly one, in which case you could.

The other point of my story is that all employment agreements are contracts. This is true even if there's some more specialized language of "employment contract" that inherently means "this is a contract that talks about term of employment"-- which I don't think is true either.
 
2009-03-16 05:22:28 PM  
Obdicut: Nabb1: He said it doesn't bother him and when he said he had gone by it before I thought it was rather amusing. It's meant in good fun.

I don't feel it's meant in good fun, by the way. It just doesn't bother me. I don't think anyone reading your Boobies to me would feel it was in good fun, either.

Nabb1: I said it sounded like he had a contract with an at-will provision. I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive

You previously stated that they are.

A contract employee is not an "at will" employee. That's the whole point of having a contract. The contract defines the employment relationship between the parties.

Though this may be simply that for some reason you're not defining an employment agreement between employee and employer as a contract, even though it is a legally binding contract.


Alright, let's explain this again - an employee without a contract is an at-will employee. An employee with a contract is not an at-will employee. An employee with a contract who is an at-will employee with an at will clause is a contract employee with an at-will clause in his contract. I did not say that an employment agreement such as you described was not a contract. In fact, since you are so adept at reading my previous comments, you would see I said that it sounded to me like you had a contract with an at-will provision. The contract is still the law between the two parties, and that agreement includes an at-will provision. That means the "at will employment" is by contract, not necessarily by the default provision of the law.
 
2009-03-16 05:22:31 PM  
I think it's stupid for Barney Frank to say AIG is incompetent, but it was congress of bailed them out anyway. Between the two - I'd say BOTH groups are completely incompetent.

And then for Obama to pretend to be the hero by trying to block the bonuses, or get the execs fired...sheez - we have a ridiculous government.

What's the point anymore...fark them all
 
2009-03-16 05:22:42 PM  
Lt. Cheese Weasel: All Apologies: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Kinda late with this bs. The farking horse is already out of the dam barn genius.

How hard can it be to have some safety and controls BEFORE they get the farking money????? DUH!



/Change is all you have left.

You'll have to ask the Administration that bailed them out, which is not the current Administration.

Well then I'm sure the current one has not handed out a nickel without said controls....you have the citation for that, right? And I'm sure a certain former Senator from Illinois voted against the AIG bailout for lacking same, right?
Hello? Hellooo...hellooo...Is this thing on?


A citation for when the TARP funds were approved, I'm sure I could find one if you really need me to. You've been corrected by 4 or 5 other people so far as well.

Actually, this Administration has done a much better job with the initiatives it has passed. The mortgage relief package, and the small business package released today are very targeted and specific. Designed to be used by only those who need it and can qualify.

If this Administration had done what the previous Administration had done, they would have handed massive piles of money to mortgage holders and let them deal with the problem because mortgage holders know how to pay their mortgages better than the government does?

Lt. Cheese, since you made the sweeping statement about the TARP funds, shouldn't you be just a little bit more confident about the who's and how's. Someone might accuse you of talking out of your arse.
 
2009-03-16 05:23:11 PM  
pendy575: I wonder how much of the total is going to people with a salary greater than 100k. Wouldn't it be somewhat ironic if he blocks bonuses going to lower or middle income employees at the company?

Lower and middle class employees don't pull down seven figure bonuses. If they did, they'd not be lower or middle class. The people doing the actual work seldom get remuneration that reflects their contribution.
 
2009-03-16 05:23:21 PM  
Obdicut: I don't think anyone reading your Boobies to me would feel it was in good fun, either.

This is now my favorite self-filter-pwned post ever.
 
2009-03-16 05:23:56 PM  
contract or not, what are these bonuses being based up?!?!

poor performance? if so, then let AIG fold......the Gov't can take them over and chop it up and sell the assets to other companies....
 
2009-03-16 05:24:57 PM  
Obdicut: Obdicut: I don't think anyone reading your Boobies to me would feel it was in good fun, either.

This is now my favorite self-filter-pwned post ever.


And here I was thinking you were admiring my moobs.

Actually, there's not much to them since I got all diet-and-exercise crazy a couple of years ago.
 
2009-03-16 05:25:33 PM  
Nabb1: an employee without a contract is an at-will employee

An employee without a contract doesn't exist, unless you feel an employment agreement is not a legally binding contract. Do you?

Something like this, I mean: Link (new window)
 
2009-03-16 05:25:48 PM  
Hender: EatHam: arkansas: hey can pay the contracted amount, and have AIG then fire them.

TFA: "These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank

Sounds like that's what they're thinking.

A better plan would be "voluntarily turn down your bonus and we won't fire you."


This I like
 
Displayed 50 of 640 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report