Reply With Quote
Why are the bonuses immoral?
Well, he would find them there...and, has India threatened us?
Why are the bonuses immoral?
India poses as much of a threat to the US as Iraq did, except we can't patrol and bomb it at will like we did Iraq.
They did not earn them
And Iraq did? Talk about consistency...
You have a bad habit of not responding to direct questions.
Who says? Did you read the contracts on which the bonuses were predicated?
That was sooooo chumperdumper-esque.
Why do you think they're "right", chumpy?
Contracts. Did u read them? I hope they had a claus that said " you will get this money no matter what even if the government has to bail us out, to keep us a float, keep us in business you will get those bonuses" That would make it all right.
Oh I forget the new treasury dude threw that in when they gave them the billions of bucks. Thank God for Obama making this right.
This guy will swallow whatever Obama spooges into his mouth. ANYTHING!!
Thats right, chumpy. The only people who can save AIG are the executives who nearly brought down the world economy due to their poor judgement.
Youre such a ing idiot. Do you know that?
They simply are -- I don't put much of a moral argument on them. If AIG's CEO is to be believed -- and I haven't seen anything to refute what he has said in his testimony -- they make sense.
Are they the same people?
This guy will swallow whatever Obama spooges into his mouth. ANYTHING!!
Thats right, chumpy. The only people who can save AIG are the executives who nearly brought down the world economy due to their poor judgement.
Youre such a ing idiot. Do you know that?
Do you know that?
Do we really know anything?
What is "truth"?
Maybe you and Obama should have a philosophical conversation on what a "bonus" is actually suppose to be.
No, the term "bonus" is pretty clear in this case.
I am asking you if you know the people receiving the bonuses are the same people that caused the financial crisis.
It's a simple question.
Well, my understanding of the contracts is that they were offered to employees -- some or all of whom had no part in the decisions that caused the problem -- who had specific knowledge of the financial instruments involved and who could wind down the operation without a catastrophic failure that would have plummeted our economy over an abyss.
Oh I forget the new treasury dude threw that in when they gave them the billions of bucks. Thank God for Obama making this right.
So, these guys agreed to stay on what was a known sinking ship -- with the specific knowledge they'd be unemployed at the end -- so they could possibly cushion the fall. They did this in exchange for money.
Geitner understood and negotiated the bonuses when he was at the fed. Chris Dodd understood this and protected the bonuses in the stimulus bill.
They had a contract and stayed months longer than others, bailing water off the anic, in exchange for a promise -- contractual obligation -- they'd receive money at the end.
Congress has cheated them out of that. I think it's uncons utional. I also think THAT is immoral.
We know Obama said no earmarks only to have over 8,000 in one bill. I don't think Obama is qualified for a philosophical conversation with anyone.
Are you remedial or do you just pretend to be? Thats your cue to disappear for another month.
You have a great point but in the end it was wrong for that company to write in those contracts the bonus money knowing they were sinking and the government was wrong for allowing this to happen until recently. They made a wrong a right in the end.
No.
AIG = bad, just because.
That's the only possible conclusion.
Not if the bonuses were intended allow the retained employees to build a bridge from certain collapse to possible rescue.
If Congress can pass bill of attainder, I think we're sunk. I'll be surprised if, in this climate, they'll find many buyers for the toxic debt. Particularly if the private investors manage to make a killing from their investment.
I can see the Congress passing another bill of attainder that will limit the profit these investors can make from taking a risk in this "partnership" Geitner is proposing.
Maybe people should understand what a bonus is. Its not giving to people for the sake of giving it to them. Its certainly not given to a company that would not be in business today if they Government had not gave them BILLIONS so they can keep there jobs.
Maybe other should understand what is a retention bonus and, further, what is a contract.
The retention bonuses, promised before the bailout and arguably promised to employees who managed to keep AIG afloat until the bailout, amounted to 9/100 of 1% of the total amount of bailout money given to AIG. That's right, .09%
Turns out AIG sucked ass and the USA citizens should not have to pay for AIG mistakes anymore. Again if these employees think they were done wrong and can get a better job for whatever reason they have, wake me up.
It would have been nice to have told them that before so, they could have sought employment elsewhere about a year ago instead of staying on at AIG and trying to mitigate the damage.
My understanding is that if they had left and taken their expertise with them -- because a) they knew their company was going down the tubes, and b) there was no incentive to stay and help and c) they have families to feed -- there would have been no opportunity for a bailout...AIG would have crashed and burned with little or no notice.
I think they will be alright. Who's to say the people who recieved the bonuses did not cause this crazyness. I'm sure there are some innocent bystanders but in the long run be careful who you work for and what u believe.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions