This has gotten ridiculous. It's completely paralyzed Washington. Everyone wants to be sure the blame doesn't get near them. It's nothing but a circus for public show because the public is pissed.

Now, they are going to tax them 90%. I doubt this will get through the Senate, I doubt it will hold up in court.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D971964O1&show_article=1

Of course they shouldn't be getting big bonuses for such massive failure. Problem is, it should have been handled before the money was given AIG. Either everyone agrees no bonuses, or no public money.

AIG = Arrogance, Incompetence, Greed.

Screw the taxing them at 90%.

They shouldn't get the bonus AT ALL.

Take back ALL the money "loaned" to AIG and put the top execs in the slammer.

The thing is that the bonuses apparently were agreed to a year ago, and they are tenure-based bonuses, not performance-based. So, most likely they aren't reversible.

Federal taxing them at 90% and New York taking the other 10%, well that's putting the money back in the taxpayers pockets. I have no problem with this; the money goes to where it SHOULD, and they get nothing. It's just a roundabout way about doing it.

Deane, it's the whole banking fallout, and subsequent controversy, that SCREAMS of the need of more regulation. The deregulation of the last eight years has largely led to this.

"The deregulation of the last eight thirty years has largely led to this."

You won't get any argument from me about more regulation. Clearly, the private sector can't be trusted.

Trouble is, I don't trust the government either. The government has it's hands dirty in this also.

"Trouble is, I don't trust the government either. The government has it's hands dirty in this also."

True. As Ronald Reagan said, "Government isn't a solution to the problem, government IS the problem." But, there has to be a system of checks and balances in place, to make sure the American public isn't getting screwed.

The House voted 328-93 to tax these bonuses at 90%. 85 Republicans voted for it, 87 Republicans and six Democrats against. I'm glad to see many in the GOP see the forest through the trees here.

A 90% tax rate on someone you dont like right now? On private citizens engaged in a binding contract with an employer and at the time a PRIVATE employer ! That is unconstituional. Read the document.

This is why we broke away from England in the 1770s. Now we have the House ( Repubs and Democrats ) passing legislation to that effect ?? The legislative branch is imploding. Those dumb sunzabeaches took the damned provision out of the Stimulus bill just a month ago and now they are having bitter pill regrets by passing an act of congress that is clearly unconstitutional and will suffer endless legal challenges if enacted , wind up in the supreme court. And after that, you and I ( dba the Federal Governement) will be paying the astronomical legal fees for all those who filed suit to receive their bonuses and be taxed at prevailing rates.

Bushwah ! Those people are crazy in Washington DC
The whole lot of them. Meanwhile you have Obama out in Orange county extolling the virtues of amnesty for Illegals , in the shadow of Nancy Pelosi saying that enforcing illegal immigration laws is ' Un- American ".

Political theater that we havent seen since Watergate ! Maybe further back than that.

"I'm glad to see many in the GOP see the forest through the trees here."

What they see is the voters standing among the trees shaking their fists.

"Bushwah ! Those people are crazy in Washington DC
The whole lot of them. Meanwhile you have Obama out in Orange county extolling the virtues of amnesty for Illegals , in the shadow of Nancy Pelosi saying that enforcing illegal immigration laws is ' Un- American".

Liberals should be careful what they wish for, they just may get it.

Unconstitutional?

Tell me, how much would those contractual bonuses be worth if AIG went BK just like any other company? ZERO. That's what would have happened without the government bailing them out.

Would the Constitution demand that creditors get paid BEHIND those that were expecting bonused in the event of BK? I think not.

As far as I'm concerned, the day the first dollar hit AIG, all contracts should have been nullified.

If we can reverse union contracts, pensions and other things, we absolutely can reverse these bonuses. Either we violated the law for those already reversed, or we are not.

Which is it?

What collar somebody wears has NO impact on these things. Since the precedent has been set, take the bonuses.

Frankly, given the mess those clowns made, let them quit. I don't think we need them.

We OWN 80 percent of those companies. This is our call as a nation, and Vitalogy has it exactly right. Their entitlement evaporated the moment the shit hit the fan.

If you have to go to the public for dollars, you surrender ownership and control and that's just how it is.

I don't support the company having to pay back either. That's just an end run around the bonus issue. They are not entitled to those, and that is what the problem is.

LOL!!

The whole book could simply be titled, "How bad is Bad?"

Sorry. I deleted instead of edited the post before Dougs.

It read:

Maybe Duhbyah should put this one in his new book under "Bad Decision".

MOB rule, thats it isnt it?

All contracts nullified huh? Ok, shoulda coulda woulda...they didnt do it ! It is too late now. They didnt even have the balls to leave it in the Stimulus because they know the Law. And then the nerve of these so called law makers to pass a piece of Legislation that Joseph Stalin would have been proud of ! A 90% tax rate on selected individuals indeed ! Next thing we will be building Gulags out in Vernonia.

"As far as I'm concerned, the day the first dollar hit AIG, all contracts should have been nullified."

I can join that position.

Me too.

I like what Senator Grassleysaid; Give them a choice; Either quit or commit suicide!

If we can reverse union contracts, pensions and other things, we absolutely can reverse these bonuses. Either we violated the law for those already reversed, or we are not.

That's true. You've heard nary a peep from me about the recent reworking of autoworkers contracts because its clear automakers are in dire straits, even if its self-inflicted..

You've heard nary a peep from me about the recent reworking of autoworkers contracts

And you haven't from the EXTREME RIGHT neo-CON fascists either because it was POSITIVE news.

true dat.

Well Deane and Skybill, it's quite refreshing to hear you both standing up for what's right and condemning this greed rather than running after the rich and powerful like your side usually does, very nice indeed.

Sweet!!

Some common ground, be it small

Well Deane and Skybill, it's quite refreshing to hear you both standing up for what's right...

Aok, contrary to popular belief on this board, just being in the conservative camp doesn't mean we don't know the difference between right and wrong.

And AIG executives getting any kind of bonus, other than the bonus of having security help them pack up their offices and shown the door, is totally wrong.

If they hadn't run the company into the ground and had made record profits for the shareholders and investors, then sure, a bonus would be fine. But we ALL know that didn't happen.

That being said, thanks for the compliment!!!

But, it is interesting that many on the right previously clamoring for "no interference with compensation" or "government management of private business" are now getting on the anti-AIG train. And what is the cause of the turnaround? I think it's the unavoidable, angry roar from the common people about the terrible unfairness and mismanagement of these financial institutions.

This all begs the question: are conservatives really the 'party of the people' if they must reverse their position when the voice of the people is unmistakably clear and loud? This whole incident is just more evidence of how out of touch with most Americans the GOP has been.

No, it's the fact that these people didn't do their job and now the taxpayer is bailing them out.

If they had done their job and created profit for their respective companies then they deserve a bonus.

I want to be the CEO of a company. I can screw it up just as well as the next guy and then when they give me $10 million for a golden parachute, I'd never have to work again!!!

I want to be the CEO of a company. I can screw it up just as well as the next guy and then when they give me $10 million for a golden parachute, I'd never have to work again!!!

I'd rather win Powerball.

I've got just about as much chance at one as the other!

Mob Rule is what I still see here. Wake up from your eternal sleep Jos Stalin and Vladimir Lenin.

If AIG board of directors had been mandated by the Feds back in October when we literally Federalized the company, that existing contracts MUST be modified for those getting bonuses or other special considerations and/or salary caps, BEFORE any bailout money was granted , I could fully understand that attitude and would support a take it or leave it posture. Sign a new contract restricting bonuses and salary , or take your severance and hit the road Jack. And whats more it is entirely legal, happens all the time, it is like going into recievership, sacrifices have to be made. But you cant get away with buying a company, making it essentially Public , wait 6 months allow contracts to be fullfilled from the previous year , then legislate tax rule changes on specific citizens for the purpose of politcal expediency, covering the asses of Chris Dodd and friends in the Senate version of the Stimulus bill that covered this issue and then maybe make the disgruntled electorate feel good to boot. Nice touch for Capitol Hill huh ? More Idiots, all of them !

Geitner's excuse as then head of the New York Federal Reserve was that he was 'looking at the big picture' and didnt know the details of the bonuses etc. Well, at least some one of his acolytes should have read the fine print and informed him of such arrangements. Then changed the contracts from the get go , back in 2008 when they got the bailout billions ! The man is an Idiot !

For Congress to pass a bill after the fact in 2009 after individuals have recieved the bonuses by contract, is UNCONSTITUIONAL AND is unconscienable to arbitrarily raise taxes on people, not popular right now. There will be a slug of legal challenges to this, dragging through our courts endlessly, whereas if we had taken care of this last year something like the way I described above , there would be no real legal challenge to any of this now.

Now we are likely to be in another embarrasing 'jackpot' over this now. Our system is based upon contract law, like it or not !

This is what happens when Politicians try to run a business !

Ok then.

Let's return the pensions, union contracts and other blue collar "contract violations".

Can't have this both ways. It's awful easy to say that "labor" needs to "sacrifice". How come it isn't so easy to ask these clowns to do the same?

And labor didn't really get asked. This crap is done all the time. CEO gets their parachute, and through manipulation, eliminates contracts. It's not like the workers get their years back to try again.

They only have those because we didn't let the place go broke. IMHO, 80 percent public ownership means we need the structure for the common good, but we don't need them.

It's pretty hard then to justify that entitlement, contract or not. And that's what has people pissed off the most.

Oh, and contract law is a sub-set of THE LAW. The full body of law consists of common law, our framers constitution, case law decisions establishing precedence, etc...

That's further divided into criminal and civil matters.

If you look back at all that has been done, clearly those contracts can be handled.

There are no sure things. It's not possible to write a contract, screw the people, and not be accountable to the people.

Maybe that is mob rule. If so, it's perfectly warranted.

Financial institutions have an OBLIGATION to act in good faith in their dealings. We depend on them for that. They DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH, and somewhere deep in their "contracts" of employment, and the regulations that empower them to exist, there are clauses that reflect that reality.

Put simply: They broke the deal first and get what's coming to them.

No, that is in invalid arguement. This renegotiation of contracts you talk about was done by a privatized institution on the head end of a possible bankruptcy or buy out by another private company. It was done at the time as I have described above, when the PRIVATE company was transistioning, not 6 months after the fact with benefits already payed out ! Timing is the key issue here. And what is adding insult to injury here is the way this was done ! By the HOUSE of Reperesentatives in an arrogant display of Political Huberis. All theater for the voters back home.

In the case of AIG you have the purchase of that entity by the Federal Govt. No provisions were made at the right time for such a " renegotiation of contracts with those people getting special perks, bonuses etc. It is unconstitutional for Congress to do such a thing , and Chris Dodd et al KNEW IT, most of these people are Lawyers ! And that is why they AT the Presidents bidding TOOK it OUT of the Stimuls package, leaving the provision only as a salary cap.

BTW, Barrack Obama came out over the weekend and said that HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT the House Bill or any other Bill ammended by the Senate that forced anyone at AIG to give up their bonus OR unfairly TAX said individuals at AIG. And why? HE IS A HAVARD LAWYER ! Obama knows damned well that the US GOVT as Plaintiff will LOOSE this in any court of the land. He might want to do this privately ,and that is evident from his statement a week ago or so about how he was looking into recovering these monies via the IRS. But he now knows as a lawyer and a Politician the case is a total 'non starter '.

And the notion that MOB RULE is justified is a typical " Liberal bully passive agressive attitude " that we have witnessed many times before.

My position is we don't need retention bonuses for the clowns that helped get us here.

These guys were entrusted with a LOT that impacts us directly. They fucked it up.

We don't need them, we don't need to cover their losses beyond stability of the system for the greater good, and they should be extremely concerned about the public attitude toward people of their kind.

If we can get those bonuses back, legally --and maybe bend the ethics a bit, I'm there. Frankly, I would be seeking jail time for a lot of them from CEO on down, until it's proven they really didn't matter.

When you screw the pooch this badly, stuff is going to happen. That's just how it is.

The only way this stuff gets fixed is if some of the fixing hurts. If we can actually just take the bonuses, great! Let them sue. Clearly the President is a better man than I am, which is why I voted for him.

Maybe the people need a few civil class actions, to own their asses for the rest of their days... Just keep filing them, over and over and over. That would consume the bonuses then, and cost them time, just like that we are going to have to spend to pay this crap back.

You are right though. This is theatre. The big deal is the 6+ trillion leaking out through the Fed. That's sunk money. No value attached, massive socialized losses.

I really don't see a reason to make these clowns whole, particularly those that didn't have any skin in the game.

And this isn't a Liberal thing. It's an American thing. We've got robber barons who have gambled and manupulated us blind, leaving us in a must pay or epic fail position. The last time we went through this, it was ugly.

It's probably going to get ugly this time too.

I'm angry over that, and feel absolutely no complusion to grant them any measure of respect or decency right now. A whole lot of people feel the same way.

That is a mob. It does suck. It is not fair.

It does exist though, and they helped create it. Being a little worried over what it might do, IS ONE OF THE REASONS NOT TO PULL THIS SHIT.

In the end, their greed got them here. If bad things happen, they can look at that and call it a life lesson. Same kinds of life lessons any of us has to learn.

Let me phrase my answer better.

I trust Obama to follow the law and be ethical. If those contracts can stand, they will stand. I also trust he will fully vet that too.

My secondary points, however ugly they are boil down to the very poor expectations set for high-level executives in general, and the financial industry in general.

This is as much a social problem for them now as it is a legal one. We really don't need those very large "too big to fail" entities. And we are in the midst of learning why.

My core position on this, for some time now, has been much greater enforcement of anti-trust laws, and a bolstering of them that would help for these entities to better hold up their end of the social contract.

At the end of the day, they exist because we let them. Maybe that's not such a good idea.

Unchecked greed is a bad thing. It is a motivator, and it's a strong one. Like anything else with some potency, if it's not managed it's a problem.

And that's just another way of saying I'm absolutely not a supply sider, and I am absolutely in favor of strong government definition and regulation of market forces.

I agree that bonuses for AIG execs or others in that company is now " institutionally unethical". And I wish that this had been vetted properly last Fall so that these people had their purse strings tightened right along with much of the rest of the Citizens of this country.

However, what the House of Representatives did last week went way over the line with regard to " Constitutional Ethics " and to say nothing of flagrant disregard for U.S.Tax Law. And also this in the opinions of hoards of others who know a whole lot more about our Constitution and out Tax structures that I do, or ever will. And they are not all 'supply siders ".

We dance a fine line between too much regulation versus not enough ! We will be and are now going through a period of more regulation as we would all expect, much like the 1930s.

How much bonus money would AIG execs have received from the company if it was allowed to go tits up? ZERO.

Therefore, contract or no contract, there should be no bonus. Let them take it to court and explain to a jury that because the government bailed them out they are due their bonuses.

As far as I'm concerned, the second the first tax dollar hit AIG, all bets are off.

Personally, I'm glad Congress has taken the action to tax the shit out of those bonuses. That's our tax payer dollars that shouldn't be going to those clowns, contracts or not. Fuck them!

Hey Vit!

For once you and I agree 100% on something!!!

15 of the 20 have given the bonuses back. It seems the next good move would be to publish the names and addresses of the 5 who didn't. I predict they would change their attitude rather quickly if that were done.

http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/aig.bonuses.andrew.2.965982.html

That would be great Deane ... not legal probably, but I like the idea.

I don't fault the people that took the bonuses; they signed off saying they would get them if they met the eligibility requirements, etc. The fault, IMHO, lies with AIG and its executives that took my tax dollars, and turned around and paid bonuses with them.

Looking at the address of Deane's link suggests that our Andrew2 got a big bonus from AIG. What's up with that Andrew?

Skybill, we agree on more than you think.

You know.....I'm sure we do.

Most likely, most of us on the board despite political differences, agree on a lot of things.

For example, I'm 100% sure that there is no one here that doesn't want anything but the best for our Country.

We may disagree on how the best way to get there is, but that's one of the great things about it. We can. We don't have to worry about being tossed in jail or beheaded for speaking out against the government.

In spite of the fact that there are some heated arguments posted here, and even some name calling, I'd be willing to bet a cold beer that if any of us met (meet) face to face, we'd all be instant friends!

Don't push it. ( wink )

Why don't you guys just get a room.