"Hah! Off by a factor of 4, those silly liberals overinflat... er, what, they were 4 times higher? Oh boy!"

sub-tard doesn't know what a factor is, I see....

rikkitikkitavi: I'm not, as TypoFlyspray implies, all that concerned about a measly $500 million bonus payout. I'm torqued that we are bailing out a completely fraudulent corporation rather than taking them to the cleaners.

Cool, then it seems we agree on the issue then. AIG should have folded and the non-asshat divisions should have been bought up in bankruptcy proceedings and life would have gone on.

bookman: (And "America", not "Amerika" or "Amerikkka".)

some sort of pet peeve ?

// hopes you are really not a moran, repugnican, or perhaps a mirror universe counter to Rotsky

rikkitikkitavi: I'm not, as TypoFlyspray implies, all that concerned about a measly $500 million bonus payout. I'm torqued that we are bailing out a completely fraudulent corporation rather than taking them to the cleaners.

That is the sort of too the point analysis I have come to expect from Mongeese. I agree. Probably should have put them in Receivership.

We are in agreement, sort of.

However, this whole ball of dung really started gathering momentum when Lehman brothers tanked and the Gov't didn't bail them out. So I wonder what would have happened had that been allowed to happen to AIG. Not saying it would have been catastrophic, but I don't think anyone can say that the risk was negligable.

Federal Government to GM. Here's 15 Billion and to get it the CEO must be willing to to resign and the Employees must take wage cuts and open their EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS to concessions.

Federal Government to AIG. Here's 180 Billion and to get it you must do nothing at all. Make sure you don't reopen any employment contracts and make sure you throw lavish parties.

This is hypocritical bullshiat at its finest.

Oh Noes!!!!
They paid $454,000,000 extra out of $170,000,000,000 in bailout moneys to 60493 employees as performance based pay for an average of $7505 per person

I don't feel outraged after doing the math.

Timmy the Tumor: Since when is it legitimate to cast a discerning eye at a non-governmental entity and cast judgment about whether people "deserve" their bonuses? (this is separate from "should a corporation that is taking money from the Government GIVE bonuses")

Point being, does anyone get their panties in a knot over whether Oil Company President X's CEO "deserves" his $50 million annual bonus, or Technology President Y's CIO "deserves" his $80 million bonus and stock options?

I'm fairly sure it became legitimate when they pay the bonus using part of the hundreds of billions of dollars we gave them to keep the company afloat instead of paying bonuses from profits.

I mean...it's kinda obvious. You even already said it. I don't understand your confusion.

GF still works for them, and got a very big bonus last year, bigger than ever before.

She also got a retention payout, which several of her co-workers received as well. Infact, as she tells it, she actually demanded a higher retention payout, with the threat of leaving the company. Low and behold, she got an extra 5k(ish).

As a few people have already pointed out in this thread, these payments were tied to legally binding contracts, most of which were in place well before the end result of AIG's negligence came out to the public. So if the government were to set the horrible precedent of dissolving private, legal contracts at their descretion, who would want to do business in the US anymore?

I can tell you that alot of the people she works with (including herself) performed actions that were not only exttemely detrimental to the company, but most knew at the time of their actions that these were. To this end, they have an absurd amount of entitlementism, the likes of which I have never seen before.

I actually got her friend (co-worker) to admit this once recently:

Me: "So you fully accept the fact that some of your direct actions and decisions lead to the failures in the company"

Him: "Yes, i'd say that's pretty accurate"

Me: "But you still feel entitled to, what most people would consider, a massive amount of free money?"

Him: "Right, except it's not free, I earned it"

Me: "By your decisions?"

Him: "Yes. The difference between myself and most Americans is that I actually have an IQ over 85. I'm considered vitally important to the country's economic landscape. Thats why I cannot be lumped into the same dirty container as most of the people, I simply am in a seperate class, and I'm rewarded accordingly"


He went on to tell me how AIG is the pillar of the US financial system and that he litereally could have done everything he could to fark things up and he would still not only feel he deserved a massive raise, he would indeed, receive one.

The best part about the conversation? His quote: "Don't like it? STFU and GBTW (his words), because who's going to stop me????"


I had no response for this, and he knew it.

/came for xkcd, had to post myself

zootsuit: neritz: HMM...Where did I leave that pitchfork?

I've got my hands full with this flaming torch... you can use mine.

I am gonna use the flaming pitchfork my dad gave me, said he used it on his job, frees up my other hand to hold bacon

Come on people. It's important for AIG to retain their top talent. Sure, $454 million sounds like a lot but when you divide that between 20 or 30 people it's really not that much.


/waiting for AIG HR to call about my application.

Timmy the Tumor: Emposter: Timmy the Tumor: Since when is it legitimate to cast a discerning eye at a non-governmental entity and cast judgment about whether people "deserve" their bonuses? (this is separate from "should a corporation that is taking money from the Government GIVE bonuses")

Point being, does anyone get their panties in a knot over whether Oil Company President X's CEO "deserves" his $50 million annual bonus, or Technology President Y's CIO "deserves" his $80 million bonus and stock options?

I'm fairly sure it became legitimate when they pay the bonus using part of the hundreds of billions of dollars we gave them to keep the company afloat instead of paying bonuses from profits.

I mean...it's kinda obvious. You even already said it. I don't understand your confusion.



I don't understand YOUR confusion.

I said SEPARATE from the issue of "companies taking money from the Government shouldn't pay bonuses"

In other words, there are two flavors of comments in this thread. One variety says "those cocksuckers at AIG not only paid $100 mil in bonuses, they paid $400 mil? String 'em up!" The second says "none of them deserve a bonus because the company sucks."

MY point is...how the hell can you determine if ANYONE in ANY company deserves their bonus...and beyond that, the only people who biatch about people getting bonuses are those who get no bonuses or smaller bonuses than those in question.

Let me support my point.

Do you think that EVERYONE employed by AIG is an asshole? Or that everyone there is an overpaid, irresponsible slacker?

Of course not.

Somewhere, in some department, there has to be at least ONE hardworking, ethical, worker there who worked long hours doing the RIGHT thing, whose work benefited both the company, its stockholders, its customers, and therefore us, the taxpayers. And his/her hard work and extra hours were also based on a contractual promise of a modest annual bonus, let's hypothesize, say, $10,000 against an annual salary of, say, $70,000.

To make a sweeping statement that "no one at AIG should get a bonus check, because the company failed" is short-sided.

As discussed above, in a division the "average bonus was $50,000." Who knows how many of those employees were worthless, how many were like the hypothetical example, how many worked for it, how many didn't.

Who knows whether the people who got annual bonuses at Coca Cola last year really "deserved" it because they worked hard or not.

Now, if AIG gives any NEW bonuses that aren't part of EXISTING contracts AFTER they received so much as a penny of bailout money, I don't care if the intended recipients worked 100 hours a week, cured cancer, and solved the energy crisis, that money should be stripped and returned to taxpayer coffers (and whomever is responsible for doling it out should be publicly eviscerated and fed to vultures).


Valid point here. Not everyone at AIG went about their business like overpaid, drunk on power parasites.

eidohntno: I do not understand the outrage of the media over this issue.

These bankers worked hard for their company, and therefore earned this money according to their employment contracts. All the demands for not paying out the bonuses are obviously motivated by envy.

Even with this revised number, these bonuses are not very huge at all when compared to the huge sums the liberals now brainlessly pour into the economy due to its wrongful economic policy, instead of letting market forces manage this minor crisis.
If politicians were paid performance based bonuses instead of shady payments just like these bankers, the government would surely be more efficient as well. But that's something the liberal media does not want you to know...

o these were performance bonuses. And you are right they really did perform very well. If you use those same rubrics, the government is doing outstanding. I wonder if they could pay out bonuses while declaring chapter 11 at the same time.

Timmy the Tumor: Emposter: Timmy the Tumor: Since when is it legitimate to cast a discerning eye at a non-governmental entity and cast judgment about whether people "deserve" their bonuses? (this is separate from "should a corporation that is taking money from the Government GIVE bonuses")

Point being, does anyone get their panties in a knot over whether Oil Company President X's CEO "deserves" his $50 million annual bonus, or Technology President Y's CIO "deserves" his $80 million bonus and stock options?

I'm fairly sure it became legitimate when they pay the bonus using part of the hundreds of billions of dollars we gave them to keep the company afloat instead of paying bonuses from profits.

I mean...it's kinda obvious. You even already said it. I don't understand your confusion.



I don't understand YOUR confusion.

I said SEPARATE from the issue of "companies taking money from the Government shouldn't pay bonuses"

In other words, there are two flavors of comments in this thread. One variety says "those cocksuckers at AIG not only paid $100 mil in bonuses, they paid $400 mil? String 'em up!" The second says "none of them deserve a bonus because the company sucks."

MY point is...how the hell can you determine if ANYONE in ANY company deserves their bonus...and beyond that, the only people who biatch about people getting bonuses are those who get no bonuses or smaller bonuses than those in question.

Let me support my point.

Do you think that EVERYONE employed by AIG is an asshole? Or that everyone there is an overpaid, irresponsible slacker?

Of course not.

Somewhere, in some department, there has to be at least ONE hardworking, ethical, worker there who worked long hours doing the RIGHT thing, whose work benefited both the company, its stockholders, its customers, and therefore us, the taxpayers. And his/her hard work and extra hours were also based on a contractual promise of a modest annual bonus, let's hypothesize, say, $10,000 against an annual salary of, say, $70,000.

To make a sweeping statement that "no one at AIG should get a bonus check, because the company failed" is short-sided.

As discussed above, in a division the "average bonus was $50,000." Who knows how many of those employees were worthless, how many were like the hypothetical example, how many worked for it, how many didn't.

Who knows whether the people who got annual bonuses at Coca Cola last year really "deserved" it because they worked hard or not.

Now, if AIG gives any NEW bonuses that aren't part of EXISTING contracts AFTER they received so much as a penny of bailout money, I don't care if the intended recipients worked 100 hours a week, cured cancer, and solved the energy crisis, that money should be stripped and returned to taxpayer coffers (and whomever is responsible for doling it out should be publicly eviscerated and fed to vultures).

Ah, I see your confusion.

You can't separate the two issues. Whether or not individual employees acted responsibly or not is irrelevant.

The statement "no one at AIG should get a bonus check, because the company failed" isn't shortsighted, it just doesn't seem fair to you. Sadly, the world isn't fair. When your company is bankrupt, you don't deserve a bonus, no matter how hard you work.

wambear1: I don't like it when someone decides to refute only half of my comment.

to be quite honest, when you make a mistake that egregious, no one cares about the second half of your comment.

rikkitikkitavi: wingnut396: So how does that make a contract invalid?

They entered into contracts with insufficient funds to cover the purposes set forth in the agreement. It's not as simple as, "It's a binding contract. AIG was forced to pay them." No, it's not. The company lacked sufficient funds. Period. Bailout of no, they lack sufficient funds and the contracts could (should) have been voided.

AIG had no funds in January of 2008? Really? Got any more hard hitting blogs to show this? If your shell game blog from earlier is right, no one in the insurance business should have bonuses.

Lastly, you are missing my point. These may have very well been fraudulently made contracts. Pay competent prosecutors and go after them. Don't let Congress dissolve contracts at will. That is bad news for future contracts. If we go down this road, it will NOT be the last time that Congress or whoever decides to dissolve contracts based on opinion instead of a defined legal procedure.

To make up law that fits what you feel is right or needed puts you in the same boat as the Bush legal counsel that had to weasel a way to make torture into a nice chat.

wingnut396: Lastly, you are missing my point. These may have very well been fraudulently made contracts. Pay competent prosecutors and go after them. Don't let Congress dissolve contracts at will. That is bad news for future contracts. If we go down this road, it will NOT be the last time that Congress or whoever decides to dissolve contracts based on opinion instead of a defined legal procedure.

To make up law that fits what you feel is right or needed puts you in the same boat as the Bush legal counsel that had to weasel a way to make torture into a nice chat.

But that's what Congress does: They make laws. In fact, that's all they can do. You're complaining that Congress should not make a law to void the contracts but they had to make a law to provide for the bailout in the first place. Seems to me it's a simple matter to pass a law to say: no bonuses for companies we are bailing out. Don't want your bonus to go away, don't ask Uncle Sam for a bailout. Not much of a slippery slope there if you ask me.

And comparing this to the Bushiates use of torture, I think you need a refresher on separation of powers. When Congress approves a bill and the president signs it, that bill becomes law. Whatever's in there is, by definition, legal. If a pro-torture bill becomes law, then torture is legal. If no-bonuses-for-bailouts become law, that too is legal. Torture was a problem because there was no new law and it violated existing laws.

brushwad: Surely, you can't be serious.

I am serious. And stop calling me Shirley.

/that was the beginning of my drinking problem.

Persnickety:


But the initial bailout did not have that in the law because they were afraid of the lawsuits that would follow. When the contracts were signed, the employees did not figure on getting a bailout.

What is happening now is that they are saying, well, you took the bailout money on the terms we set. We don't like what you did to satisfy legal operation requirements, so we are changing the rules. Thats crap.

CHARGE THE FARKERS THAT COMMITED FRAUD. LET THE COMPANY FOLD. I have not problem with either of the. Don't make a precedent of throwing out contracts to appease the mob. Its bad law, just like many other knee jerk laws that were passed.

As for separation of powers, you need to look at how things work. The Executive can do a good bit, including making stuff legal or illegal through interpreting what is on the books. Regulatory agencies, part of the executive, can often change rules without the express permission of Congress.

So the idea of making stuff legal to fit your mood works. Bush twisted the interpretation of the law to make sure what they did was 'legal'. Its not really 'illegal' until someone is charged or it goes to the court anyway. So yeah, even though it is not for the executive to make law, they sort of do it via the backdoor anyway by the way the interpret what Congress and precedent has set.

Timmy the Tumor: Perhaps we can agree to disagree, then.

Perhaps...perhaps...

Timmy the Tumor: An organization that is "bankrupt" this year may turn an enormous profit next year. With the exception of government-bailed out entities (this is a strange exception), reward the performers even in a negative year because they are the ones who will make you solvent next year--especially if they have a contract for it.

Then they get bonuses next year in keeping with enormous profits. Paying out half a billion in bonuses as the company is barely staying alive (if that) is not an intelligent business plan...its the kind of thinking that led to the massive hidden debts that caused the current economic crisis.

Regarding bailed out companies being an exception and needing to pay bonuses more, please explain how the "performers" deserve my money for their hard work more than I deserve it for my hard work. Hell, explain why they deserve my money at all.

Timmy the Tumor: (another way to think of it is this...if not for the performers, instead of being "rescue-able," AIG might have been so far in the toilet that no act of Congress or God could have saved them)

Here's another way to think about it. If not for the bailout, the "performers" would all unemployed. They should feel lucky to even have jobs...there are tons of Wall Street employees who no longer do.

wingnut396: Persnickety:


But the initial bailout did not have that in the law because they were afraid of the lawsuits that would follow. When the contracts were signed, the employees did not figure on getting a bailout.

True. The alternative to the bailout, however was bankruptcy so that's not a very strong argument. I'm not sure what lawsuit one could file if Congress voids the contract with the power of law. When I took out my student loans, the interest was deductable. By the time I graduated, it wasn't anymore. Congress changed the rules and Them's the Breaks.


What is happening now is that they are saying, well, you took the bailout money on the terms we set. We don't like what you did to satisfy legal operation requirements, so we are changing the rules. Thats crap.

Congress does this all the time. There's no guarantees when gov't money is involved. I fully expect to not see a dime of Social Security even though I've been paying into it for years and the latest statement from the gov't tells me what my future retirement benefit will be. A couple strokes of a pen and it's all gone and it's 100% legal.


CHARGE THE FARKERS THAT COMMITED FRAUD. LET THE COMPANY FOLD. I have not problem with either of the. Don't make a precedent of throwing out contracts to appease the mob. Its bad law, just like many other knee jerk laws that were passed.

The big precedent has already been set with having the bailout in the first place. Placing a condition on it to eliminate the bonuses is small potatoes in comparison. Is it mob rule? Kinda. Sometimes you have to placate the mob. When a company asks We The People to socialize their debts, it's not too unreasonable for We The People to expect the pain to be spread among those who should be damn happy to still a job at all. If Congress had done nothing it would have been bankruptcy and there would be no expectation of salary, let alone bonuses.


As for separation of powers, you need to look at how things work. The Executive can do a good bit, including making stuff legal or illegal through interpreting what is on the books. Regulatory agencies, part of the executive, can often change rules without the express permission of Congress.

So the idea of making stuff legal to fit your mood works. Bush twisted the interpretation of the law to make sure what they did was 'legal'. Its not really 'illegal' until someone is charged or it goes to the court anyway. So yeah, even though it is not for the executive to make law, they sort of do it via the backdoor anyway by the way the interpret what Congress and precedent has set.

Executive orders and rules do not hold the same force of legality as laws passed by Congress. One can argue over the particulars of what is or isn't torture or how much we should pay farmers this year not to plant crops but once a bill becomes law, the only way to challenge it is on constitutional grounds.

Timmy the Tumor: half a billion?

$454 million plus $165 million is well above half a billion...so yes.

Timmy the Tumor: 1. Never said "bailed out companies need to pay bonuses more." You need to re-read my posts. In a nutshell...I feel they need to honor their contracts (just my opinion, ok if you disagree), and absolutely no new bonuses as long as they accept even a penny of taxpayer money.

Yeah, that's a whoops, you actually said the exact opposite and I read it too fast. Apologies.

Timmy the Tumor: The rank and file employee at AIG didn't begin 2008 expecting the company to go tits up. Why should they finish the year without money they legitimately earned?


(and I have never worked a job that included a bonus, so I'm not one that figures that annual bonus dollars are "part of my salary" as many do)

That's the real problem right there. My job DOES include bonuses, and let me tell you, if the people at AIG expect bonuses then they are spoiled and doing it wrong. Your salary is what you expect to get. Bonuses are a happy surprise that you get if there is extra money left over and you did a good job.

Bonuses are like Christmas presents. Wall Street employees are like the spoiled children who throw tantrums because their presents aren't amazing enough instead of being thankful that they got anything at all. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's close, and it gets the feeling across.

pixeled: wambear1: I don't like it when someone decides to refute only half of my comment.

to be quite honest, when you make a mistake that egregious, no one cares about the second half of your comment.

I'd contend that the more egregious error is assuming that those that brought down AIG make up any material percentage of their headcount. The vast majority of AIG employees work selling and servicing incredibly boring and bog standard insurance contracts. These are parts of the company that are to this profitable.

It was a small group in London, far outside AIG's normal business model, were selling credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations without collateral to back them, actions that were completely legitimate given AIG's credit rating at the time. When the company's rating was down graded the company had to post collateral with it's counter-parties. Due to the illiquidity of certain markets AIG relied on for this, as well as the decline in the value of the contracts, AIG suffered a massive liquidity crisis. A bail-out was considered necessary because the risk was not just to AIG but to all of the counter-parties for these contracts. They had entered the contracts with AIG because, as the largest insurer in the world, with a prime credit rating, it was one of the safest places to do this. By and large the CDS's were entered to limit downside risk on underlying securities.

My point in saying all of that is that an incredibly small group of investment bankers, working well outside of AIG's core business and AIG senior executives can be blamed for the company's troubles and for bringing down otherwise safe and boring business units with them.

Fano: rikkitikkitavi: wingnut396: So how does that make a contract invalid?

They entered into contracts with insufficient funds to cover the purposes set forth in the agreement. It's not as simple as, "It's a binding contract. AIG was forced to pay them." No, it's not. The company lacked sufficient funds. Period. Bailout of no, they lack sufficient funds and the contracts could (should) have been voided.

You mean I can that I can run up my visa card as long as I don't have the money to pay for it?

Good to know.

Not paying employees is stealing.

That's a line of credit. Not the same thing. And you are obligated to repay what you borrow. You really think AIG is going to?

wingnut396: rikkitikkitavi: wingnut396: So how does that make a contract invalid?

They entered into contracts with insufficient funds to cover the purposes set forth in the agreement. It's not as simple as, "It's a binding contract. AIG was forced to pay them." No, it's not. The company lacked sufficient funds. Period. Bailout of no, they lack sufficient funds and the contracts could (should) have been voided.

AIG had no funds in January of 2008? Really? Got any more hard hitting blogs to show this? If your shell game blog from earlier is right, no one in the insurance business should have bonuses.

Lastly, you are missing my point. These may have very well been fraudulently made contracts. Pay competent prosecutors and go after them. Don't let Congress dissolve contracts at will. That is bad news for future contracts. If we go down this road, it will NOT be the last time that Congress or whoever decides to dissolve contracts based on opinion instead of a defined legal procedure.

To make up law that fits what you feel is right or needed puts you in the same boat as the Bush legal counsel that had to weasel a way to make torture into a nice chat.

A. It's not a "blog". It's an risk analysis think tank and professional services corporate website. They get paid to do this analysis, they aren't just spouting off on the web for farks sake.

B. No, they didn't have any money because everything on the books was fictitious.

C. That is exactly my point. We should not have bailed out AIG at all. They would not have paid the bonuses (minor detail) and they would have folded. We would not have lost additional BILLIONS in them and we'd be on our way. This was a completely farked up waste of money to cover someone's ass in Washington. And 100% criminal (without making up additional laws).

Missing the point:

1. Congress is fine with this - how else would they get bribes?
2. how to fix it? "Thank you. Of course, if this isn't true, you'll be in Abu Ghraib for the next 50 years". Is there something else you want to tell us?"

wambear1: pixeled: wambear1: I don't like it when someone decides to refute only half of my comment.

to be quite honest, when you make a mistake that egregious, no one cares about the second half of your comment.

I'd contend that the more egregious error is assuming that those that brought down AIG make up any material percentage of their headcount. The vast majority of AIG employees work selling and servicing incredibly boring and bog standard insurance contracts. These are parts of the company that are to this profitable.

It was a small group in London, far outside AIG's normal business model, were selling credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations without collateral to back them, actions that were completely legitimate given AIG's credit rating at the time. When the company's rating was down graded the company had to post collateral with it's counter-parties. Due to the illiquidity of certain markets AIG relied on for this, as well as the decline in the value of the contracts, AIG suffered a massive liquidity crisis. A bail-out was considered necessary because the risk was not just to AIG but to all of the counter-parties for these contracts. They had entered the contracts with AIG because, as the largest insurer in the world, with a prime credit rating, it was one of the safest places to do this. By and large the CDS's were entered to limit downside risk on underlying securities.

My point in saying all of that is that an incredibly small group of investment bankers, working well outside of AIG's core business and AIG senior executives can be blamed for the company's troubles and for bringing down otherwise safe and boring business units with them.

The Story of the Trojan Horse, as it might have occurred in the universe of government bailouts and proponents of fairness for all the little people. Brought to you by Emposter.

Troy has big, huge impenetrable walls. The Greek army is failing utterly to get in. They come up with a genius plan, and create a giant hollow wheeled horse which they fill with soldiers and roll up to the gates of Troy.

Thinking the horse is a gift from the gods, the Trojan guards open the gates and bring the horse in, only to have the Greek soldiers later sneak out and open the gates of Troy and allow the Greek army in to ravage the countrysi...

Wait, what? Oh, that's the Trojan commander talking to the Greek commander! What is going on! What's this! The Trojan says that the whole "opening the gates disaster" was just an isolated mishap done by a few idiot guardsmen who drank too much. Most of the Trojans are good, hardworking people who would never have fallen for it. Now he's asking if the Greeks would mind going back outside the walls so that they can fight the war fair and square.

Good lord, the Greeks are actually doing it! Amazing!


See how retarded it sounds when you expect life to be fair?

Emposter
See how retarded it sounds when you expect life to be fair?

I don't expect life to be fair. I just can't fathom why everyone is is insistent at this point to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fact of the matte ris that the government holds huge chunks of AIG debt that pays very good interest. The US benefits greatly if we get this money back. That being said, why is it a bad thing to ensure that the employees of the company that are going to drive the sales that provide us with our interest and principal payments stay happy. I can't accept the reasoning that they should just be happy they have a job.

It's like the story from yesterday about Section 8 and HUD. People aren't going to do their best and act prudently if they have no interest in doing so.

wambear1: I just can't fathom why everyone is is insistent at this point to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Cause the baby is on life support and will never, ever recover. The bailouts are just postponing the inevitable and costing us even more money.

wambear1: The US benefits greatly if we get this money back.

Get it back? Are you kidding?

wambear1: I can't accept the reasoning that they should just be happy they have a job.

Really? Even when the alternative is unemployment without severance pay?

Timmy the Tumor: wambear1: Emposter
See how retarded it sounds when you expect life to be fair?

I don't expect life to be fair. I just can't fathom why everyone is is insistent at this point to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fact of the matte ris that the government holds huge chunks of AIG debt that pays very good interest. The US benefits greatly if we get this money back. That being said, why is it a bad thing to ensure that the employees of the company that are going to drive the sales that provide us with our interest and principal payments stay happy. I can't accept the reasoning that they should just be happy they have a job.

It's like the story from yesterday about Section 8 and HUD. People aren't going to do their best and act prudently if they have no interest in doing so.


I have to agree.

Where I'm at, my monthly contribution for health insurance doubled, the company's contribution to my 401(k) decreased by 75%, travel budgets were canceled, training budgets were virtually eliminated for the next 12 months, we were told that no one will get new equipment this year regardless of how decrepit their computers are, we were notified that no one will get a pay increase for 12 months, and there were surprise layoffs that affected 10% of the employees. Official management stance was "you should be happy that you have a job."

I might be RELIEVED that I still have a job, but there were a shiatload of us that sure weren't HAPPY that we still had a job (there).

I'm guessing there are an awful lot of AIG employees who would say the same thing.

Really? So you would have been happier if you had been laid off?

You can be happy to have a job while still being unhappy with the compensation. In fact, I am right now. It's really easy, these days, what with rapidly rising unemployment.

HeartBurnKid: eidohntno: I do not understand the outrage of the media over this issue.

These bankers worked hard for their company, and therefore earned this money according to their employment contracts. All the demands for not paying out the bonuses are obviously motivated by envy.

Even with this revised number, these bonuses are not very huge at all when compared to the huge sums the liberals now brainlessly pour into the economy due to its wrongful economic policy, instead of letting market forces manage this minor crisis.
If politicians were paid performance based bonuses instead of shady payments just like these bankers, the government would surely be more efficient as well. But that's something the liberal media does not want you to know...

0/10. Too obvious.

Nah, you have to give him a 1/10 since there are still neo-cons out there writing columns and blogs essentially making the same argument.

They're trollerific!

TypoFlyspray: Guys, perspective, get some.

454 million/170 billion is 0.27%. That's a quarter of a cent from each dollar of bailout for all AIG employee incentive pay. The 165 Million of Executive Retention bonuses was 1/10 of a cent on the dollar. This means that just under 1/5 of a cent on each dollar went to their rank and file. That's economic stimulus right there, but piddling compared to the 170 Billion. It's a fricking rounding error. Get over it.

I'll get over it when someone cuts me a check for $1 million. Why not? It's just a "rounding error."

Timmy the Tumor: Emposter: Timmy the Tumor: wambear1: Emposter
See how retarded it sounds when you expect life to be fair?

I don't expect life to be fair. I just can't fathom why everyone is is insistent at this point to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The fact of the matte ris that the government holds huge chunks of AIG debt that pays very good interest. The US benefits greatly if we get this money back. That being said, why is it a bad thing to ensure that the employees of the company that are going to drive the sales that provide us with our interest and principal payments stay happy. I can't accept the reasoning that they should just be happy they have a job.

It's like the story from yesterday about Section 8 and HUD. People aren't going to do their best and act prudently if they have no interest in doing so.


I have to agree.

Where I'm at, my monthly contribution for health insurance doubled, the company's contribution to my 401(k) decreased by 75%, travel budgets were canceled, training budgets were virtually eliminated for the next 12 months, we were told that no one will get new equipment this year regardless of how decrepit their computers are, we were notified that no one will get a pay increase for 12 months, and there were surprise layoffs that affected 10% of the employees. Official management stance was "you should be happy that you have a job."

I might be RELIEVED that I still have a job, but there were a shiatload of us that sure weren't HAPPY that we still had a job (there).

I'm guessing there are an awful lot of AIG employees who would say the same thing.

Really? So you would have been happier if you had been laid off?

You can be happy to have a job while still being unhappy with the compensation. In fact, I am right now. It's really easy, these days, what with rapidly rising unemployment.


You're exhausting.

Is everything farking black and white extreme with you?

Saying we weren't happy to have a job (there) does not equal "we would be happier had we been laid off." And it's also quite possible to continue working at a company even if you aren't happy there, millions of people do it every day.

Relieved to still be employed? Yes.

Happy? As in "enjoying or showing or marked by joy or pleasure?" No.

There's a difference.

Man...you think I'M exhausting.

It's not black and white...there are different shades of happy. Since there is no finite maximum or minimum to happiness, we are forced to look at it as a relative measurement.

Being employed either makes your happier than if you were unemployed, or less happy. Since you say you were relieved, I'm willing to bet it made you happier. Did it make you as happy as you could possibly be? Probably not. Did it make you as happy as if you were getting paid more? Probably not.

Though, obviously it didn't make you happier than you become when you are playing meaningless word games.

Likewise, the employees at AIG likely would likely be happier to have a job there, even without bonuses, than they would be unemployed on the street. Certainly they should be. I for one would be overjoyed to try it and find out.

TypoFlyspray: Guys, perspective, get some.

454 million/170 billion is 0.27%. That's a quarter of a cent from each dollar of bailout for all AIG employee incentive pay. The 165 Million of Executive Retention bonuses was 1/10 of a cent on the dollar. This means that just under 1/5 of a cent on each dollar went to their rank and file. That's economic stimulus right there, but piddling compared to the 170 Billion. It's a fricking rounding error. Get over it.

I'll take every tenth of a cent back now, thanks.

Now the state is going to micromanage the pay structure of low-level employees. What's next? A Congressional hearing on the brand of toilet paper AIG uses in its offices?

The Sofa King: Now the state is going to micromanage the pay structure of low-level employees. What's next? A Congressional hearing on the brand of toilet paper AIG uses in its offices?

That's the most apt analogy I've EVER read EVER EVER. There wasn't an ounce of hyperbole to be found; THE PERFECT ANALOGY.

/perfect.

I've been saying this since I first heard of bonuses during bailouts and other incidents involving politicians being corrupt.

The French had it right about 200 years ago, lets just dust off the guillotine and chop off a few heads then ask who else wants to be greedy and immoral....see how that goes.

Only one division of AIG screwed everyone over, and there's no reason why employees in divisions showing a profit shouldn't get their bonuses. The alternative is for AIG to lose most of their good employees, making them COMPLETELY unprofitable and unable to ever recover to the point where they can pay off the massive bailouts.

Penalize people who did something wrong, not everyone indiscriminately.

Lunch Box Hero: I'll get over it when someone cuts me a check for $1 million. Why not? It's just a "rounding error."

Actually, you're a prophylactic error, or perhaps a divide by zero. Chances are you are already getting a proportional amount to this indirectly from the federal government. Either in tax credits or in subsidies of products you use that would otherwise cost more.

Emposter: I'll take every tenth of a cent back now, thanks.

It's those like you wot cause unrest.