OH, I am just lovin' Obama!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 8:19 PM GMT
    The man is not going to let this slip by...

    " "Nobody here drafted those contracts; nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in," he said outside the White House. "[But] we are responsible, though. The buck stops with me."

    Obama, in a defiant tone, once again lashed out at the controversial bonuses given to executives at AIG, which received $173 billion in government bailouts over the past six months.

    "People are right to be angry. I am angry. ... People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses," he said. "But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of that have existed for far too long, a situation where excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking have all made us vulnerable and left us holding the bag." Watch Obama blast AIG bonuses »

    Obama said he held discussions with his economic team and with Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Frank presided over hearings Wednesday on the AIG bonus controversy."

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/obama.economy/index.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 8:22 PM GMT
    It might be cheaper to let the bonuses go through, but hold back the equivalent of $165M from AIG's "bailout" money.

    Or you could claw them back and spend a fortune in legal bills. Why is it that lawyers always end up the winners in these situations? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 9:30 PM GMT
    SurrealLife saidIt might be cheaper to let the bonuses go through, but hold back the equivalent of $165M from AIG's "bailout" money.

    Or you could claw them back and spend a fortune in legal bills. Why is it that lawyers always end up the winners in these situations? icon_rolleyes.gif


    Well at least the legal fees will help stimulate the econemy...lol..joking aside.

    AIG is a HUGE mess. and the problems within the compnay and the finacial problems it has caused will not be solved over night. Also not all the problems are going to be found out or seen right away. These contracts signed 1-2 years ago by the employees is just and example. Im sure before it is all said and done with AIG will surprise us a few more times with their greed.

    All I know is if I was one of these executives I would be giving the money back in a big public way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 9:40 PM GMT
    It's an oldie, but very timely....altho she examines folly in government policies, it applies as well to the current financial debacle.

    themarchoffolly.jpg

    Product Description
    Twice a winner of the Pulitzer Prize, author Barbara Tuchman now tackles the pervasive presence of folly in governments through the ages. Defining folly as the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interersts, despite the availability of feasible alternatives, Tuchman details four decisive turning points in history that illustrate the very heights of folly in government: the Trojan War, the breakup of the Holy See provoked by the Renaissance Popes, the loss of the American colonies by Britain's George III, and the United States' persistent folly in Vietnam. THE MARCH OF FOLLY brings the people, places, and events of history magnificently alive for today's reader.


    From the Publisher
    Barbara Tuchman defines folly as "Pursuit of Policy Contrary to Self-Interest." In THE MARCH OF FOLLY, Tuchman examines 4 conflicts: The Trojan Horse, The Protestant Secession, The American Revolution, and The American War in Vietnam. In each example an alternative course of action was available, the actions were endorsed by a group, not just an individual leader, and the actions were perceived as counter productive in their own time. Many individuals are guilty of folly (Tuchman also calls this woodenheadedness), but when governments persist in folly, their actions can adversely affect thousands, even millions of lives. Folly is a child of power. "The power to command frequently causes failure to think."(p.32).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 9:47 PM GMT
    The Obama administration and the Congress all knew that these bonuses had been scheduled. The "outrage" is a truly cynical performance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 10:13 PM GMT
    ObsceneWish saidThe Obama administration and the Congress all knew that these bonuses had been scheduled. The "outrage" is a truly cynical performance.


    Bullshit Obama did not know! Did he tell you he knew!

    See more crap to clean up!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 10:18 PM GMT
    Caslon9000 saidThe man is not going to let this slip by...

    " "Nobody here drafted those contracts; nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in," he said outside the White House. "[But] we are responsible, though. The buck stops with me."

    Obama, in a defiant tone, once again lashed out at the controversial bonuses given to executives at AIG, which received $173 billion in government bailouts over the past six months.

    "People are right to be angry. I am angry. ... People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses," he said. "But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of that have existed for far too long, a situation where excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking have all made us vulnerable and left us holding the bag." Watch Obama blast AIG bonuses »

    Obama said he held discussions with his economic team and with Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Frank presided over hearings Wednesday on the AIG bonus controversy."

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/obama.economy/index.html


    Yes. The man is awesome. A saint. Quintuples a federal deficit by allowing pork projects like fisbee parks in Maine, studies on why pigs smell bad, and paying out Phillipino war reparations to people who don't even live in this country to the tune of $2 TRILLION, yet huffs and puffs and pretends to be upset about $165 MILLION in bonuses that are given out.

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Mar 18, 2009 10:23 PM GMT
    StoneColdChad84 said
    Caslon9000 saidThe man is not going to let this slip by...

    " "Nobody here drafted those contracts; nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in," he said outside the White House. "[But] we are responsible, though. The buck stops with me."

    Obama, in a defiant tone, once again lashed out at the controversial bonuses given to executives at AIG, which received $173 billion in government bailouts over the past six months.

    "People are right to be angry. I am angry. ... People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses," he said. "But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of that have existed for far too long, a situation where excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking have all made us vulnerable and left us holding the bag." Watch Obama blast AIG bonuses »

    Obama said he held discussions with his economic team and with Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Frank presided over hearings Wednesday on the AIG bonus controversy."

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/obama.economy/index.html


    Yes. The man is awesome. A saint. Quintuples a federal deficit by allowing pork projects


    A saint by "Bush standards"... absolutely. We can't have the "Clinton surplus" at this moment, it was destroyed by Iraqi spending.. but compared to Bush, we have a Saint... Thank god!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 10:28 PM GMT
    Supposedly Geithner knew last Tuesday and let the bonuses go through. Only problem is he forgot to tell the boss. Oopsies! They have got to get Tim Geithner some help, he probably isn't sleeping more than a few hours a night.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2009 10:33 PM GMT
    They have only been there 50...60...days. I am willing to cut them some slack on such criticism OW's.

    I am refreshed to hear a president come out and take responsibility.
  • dantoujours

    Posts: 378

    Mar 18, 2009 10:36 PM GMT
    Yes. The man is awesome. A saint. Quintuples a federal deficit by allowing pork projects like fisbee parks in Maine, studies on why pigs smell bad, and paying out Phillipino war reparations to people who don't even live in this country to the tune of $2 TRILLION, yet huffs and puffs and pretends to be upset about $165 MILLION in bonuses that are given out.


    40% of those pork projects were introduced by Republicans, including 6 of the ten largest (of course how pork is defined which which projects are pork and which aren't is up to discussion.)

    It's a difficult call. Most mainstream economists think time is of the essence. The longer the stimulus spending is put off, the deeper the depression may be. So Obama would be damned if he vetoed the bill and they had to start all over again (which wouldn't guarantee that pork projects wouldn't be just re-added) and Obama is damned for passing it with the pork.

    The U.S. President doesn't have a line item veto at his disposal. The guy can't win.

    Democracy is messy, but it beats the alternative.



  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 18, 2009 10:37 PM GMT
    StoneColdChad84 said
    Caslon9000 saidThe man is not going to let this slip by...

    " "Nobody here drafted those contracts; nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in," he said outside the White House. "[But] we are responsible, though. The buck stops with me."

    Obama, in a defiant tone, once again lashed out at the controversial bonuses given to executives at AIG, which received $173 billion in government bailouts over the past six months.

    "People are right to be angry. I am angry. ... People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses," he said. "But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of that have existed for far too long, a situation where excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking have all made us vulnerable and left us holding the bag." Watch Obama blast AIG bonuses »

    Obama said he held discussions with his economic team and with Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Frank presided over hearings Wednesday on the AIG bonus controversy."

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/obama.economy/index.html


    Yes. The man is awesome. A saint. Quintuples a federal deficit by allowing pork projects like fisbee parks in Maine, studies on why pigs smell bad, and paying out Phillipino war reparations to people who don't even live in this country to the tune of $2 TRILLION, yet huffs and puffs and pretends to be upset about $165 MILLION in bonuses that are given out.

    icon_rolleyes.gif



    The supposed $2 Trillion in projects will stimulate scientific research (your pigs example), build parks, and fix schools and bridges -- stuff that matters. BIG difference between that and giving $165 mill. of taxpayer money to people who are already extremely wealthy. Any intelligent person could see the difference, and why one expense is both justifiable and good, while the other is obscene.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 12:21 AM GMT
    Sorry, boys, but the outrage about AIG's bonuses is bogus. It's a big performance by Congress and the White House.

    It's fully documented that Sen. Chris Dodd tried to limit bonuses in the stimulus package and the White House objected last month, and Congress killed the provision that would have limited them. Then, once the story broke, Obama's people turned around and actually tried to blame Dodd for the ridiculous bonuses.

    Glenn Greenwald has fully documented it here:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html

    It's all well and good to praise Obama for what he's done in some respects, but he is turning out to be a massive disappointment in some respects, including his reiteration of Bush's policies regarding secrecy and eavesdropping.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 12:28 AM GMT
    Ya, someone in the Obama administration noogied Chris Dodd until he neutered a bonus provision in the stimulus package.

    (I would use your Greenwald link OW, but his RSS feed bugs the shit out of me. Which is too bad as I enjoy his journalism.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 12:32 AM GMT
    icon_rolleyes.gificon_confused.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_confused.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_confused.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_confused.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_confused.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_confused.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_confused.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_confused.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 2:27 AM GMT
    StoneColdChad84 said
    Caslon9000 saidThe man is not going to let this slip by...

    " "Nobody here drafted those contracts; nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in," he said outside the White House. "[But] we are responsible, though. The buck stops with me."

    Obama, in a defiant tone, once again lashed out at the controversial bonuses given to executives at AIG, which received $173 billion in government bailouts over the past six months.

    "People are right to be angry. I am angry. ... People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses," he said. "But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of that have existed for far too long, a situation where excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking have all made us vulnerable and left us holding the bag." Watch Obama blast AIG bonuses »

    Obama said he held discussions with his economic team and with Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Frank presided over hearings Wednesday on the AIG bonus controversy."

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/obama.economy/index.html


    Yes. The man is awesome. A saint. Quintuples a federal deficit by allowing pork projects like fisbee parks in Maine, studies on why pigs smell bad, and paying out Phillipino war reparations to people who don't even live in this country to the tune of $2 TRILLION, yet huffs and puffs and pretends to be upset about $165 MILLION in bonuses that are given out.

    icon_rolleyes.gif
    ...............>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Good to see you around Stonecold !!!! your one of the better republicans in my book, but man dontchabeblamin my man O' for all that stuff, yerhurtinmyfeelins !!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 3:05 AM GMT
    Back to stonecolds critique: At least the 2 trillion you mentioned of Obama's budget is to be spent here at home to forward our recovery and aim our economy in a progressive direction for our better future, both to save us from a previous bush administrations expenditures of more than 2 trillion (all considered to date war expenses and deductions in taxes for the rich and for future medical expenses from the approx 30,000 wounded) His expenses went for WHO? Billions unaccounted for, Haliburton has done well and so has KBR, both of which were awarded no-bid contracts, run previously by Cheney, who while CEO of Haliburton purchased KBR from the Bush family. I'll go with Obama deficit spending any day for us at home to forward a future where we can see ourselves coming out of the debt because of wise use of the borrowed money. Seems much better his way than sending it to bush and cheney chronies, don't you think? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I generally like Greenwalds research, but I just read an article on Huffington post under "whodunit" where Dodd was quoted saying that treasury pressured him to change wording which would have cut back on bonuses because of pressure from Treasury Dept. who was afraid of suits, and who was telling the same to Obama's crew, these current bonus figures weren't known then. He definately seemed to exonorate Obama and Geithner. So I'll take Dodds own word for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 3:39 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidYa, someone in the Obama administration noogied Chris Dodd until he neutered a bonus provision in the stimulus package.

    (I would use your Greenwald link OW, but his RSS feed bugs the shit out of me. Which is too bad as I enjoy his journalism.)


    Well, I like TPM too but Glennzilla is usually out front.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2009 3:59 AM GMT
    StoneColdChad84 said
    Caslon9000 saidThe man is not going to let this slip by...

    " "Nobody here drafted those contracts; nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in," he said outside the White House. "[But] we are responsible, though. The buck stops with me."

    Obama, in a defiant tone, once again lashed out at the controversial bonuses given to executives at AIG, which received $173 billion in government bailouts over the past six months.

    "People are right to be angry. I am angry. ... People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses," he said. "But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of that have existed for far too long, a situation where excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking have all made us vulnerable and left us holding the bag." Watch Obama blast AIG bonuses »

    Obama said he held discussions with his economic team and with Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Frank presided over hearings Wednesday on the AIG bonus controversy."

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/obama.economy/index.html


    Yes. The man is awesome. A saint. Quintuples a federal deficit by allowing pork projects like fisbee parks in Maine, studies on why pigs smell bad, and paying out Phillipino war reparations to people who don't even live in this country to the tune of $2 TRILLION, yet huffs and puffs and pretends to be upset about $165 MILLION in bonuses that are given out.

    icon_rolleyes.gif



    Marry me?
  • NYCAthlete

    Posts: 132

    Mar 19, 2009 4:09 AM GMT
    I disagree with the sentiment that AIG did something wrong.

    AIG paid out 165 million in -contractual- bonuses. By putting such an emphasis on these bonuses President Obama is taking the wrong stand. You cannot, especially if you are the President of the USA, declare that it would have been correct for any company to break its contractual obligations. Contracts and fulfilling those obligations are a pillar of our capitalist society, and given free will no one would ever fulfill such obligations.

    Do I agree that bonuses on Wall Street can be abnormally high. Yes. Do I agree that all bonuses should be wiped out? No.

    I work on Wall Street. My company received government funds - not US government funds, but government funds nonethless. My company paid out over 1 billion in -contractual- obligations to just a small handful of people. Why? Because they were contractual. So what happened to those of us without contractual obligated bonuses? We got screwed.

    I made thousands of people and institutions a lot of money this year. I had nothing to do with mortgage backed securities. My division beat our earning expectations and were in the green. And hell, I don't even have a mortgage, so I'm not one of those defaulting on a mortgage that caused this issue in the first place.

    I did not, however, receive a bonus this year. I am not some overpaid exec. Luckily for me, I don't rely on a bonus for my living expenses so I'm not out on the street. Am I upset that a small handful of people still walked away with big money this year, even if they were directly responsible for my company losing 45 billion this year? No. I'm jealous, but not mad. That is part of business. Those people are smart enough to lock in a guaranteed bonus because they know times get tough.

    The big picture is that a company can't just cancel its contracts. Just think what would happen if you or your company decided to cancel its contracts. You'd be dragged into court and no one would ever do business with you again. The cost of taking such action would be much greater than the cost of the contracts themselves.

    There are bigger fish to fry than those men and women splitting 165 million.
    Don't blame them for having a contract where you or I did not. And be thankful that a company is willing to honor its contracts it has put its John Hancock on.

    At the end of the day AIG did nothing wrong. It did what it was legally obligated to do. Is it distasteful in these times. Perhaps. But just because times are tough, does that warrant putting laws aside? The answer is no, no matter how you look at it.

  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Mar 19, 2009 8:29 PM GMT
    NYCAthlete saidI disagree with the sentiment that AIG did something wrong.

    AIG paid out 165 million in -contractual- bonuses. By putting such an emphasis on these bonuses President Obama is taking the wrong stand. You cannot, especially if you are the President of the USA, declare that it would have been correct for any company to break its contractual obligations. Contracts and fulfilling those obligations are a pillar of our capitalist society, and given free will no one would ever fulfill such obligations.

    Do I agree that bonuses on Wall Street can be abnormally high. Yes. Do I agree that all bonuses should be wiped out? No.

    I work on Wall Street. My company received government funds - not US government funds, but government funds nonethless. My company paid out over 1 billion in -contractual- obligations to just a small handful of people. Why? Because they were contractual. So what happened to those of us without contractual obligated bonuses? We got screwed.

    I made thousands of people and institutions a lot of money this year. I had nothing to do with mortgage backed securities. My division beat our earning expectations and were in the green. And hell, I don't even have a mortgage, so I'm not one of those defaulting on a mortgage that caused this issue in the first place.

    I did not, however, receive a bonus this year. I am not some overpaid exec. Luckily for me, I don't rely on a bonus for my living expenses so I'm not out on the street. Am I upset that a small handful of people still walked away with big money this year, even if they were directly responsible for my company losing 45 billion this year? No. I'm jealous, but not mad. That is part of business. Those people are smart enough to lock in a guaranteed bonus because they know times get tough.

    The big picture is that a company can't just cancel its contracts. Just think what would happen if you or your company decided to cancel its contracts. You'd be dragged into court and no one would ever do business with you again. The cost of taking such action would be much greater than the cost of the contracts themselves.

    There are bigger fish to fry than those men and women splitting 165 million.
    Don't blame them for having a contract where you or I did not. And be thankful that a company is willing to honor its contracts it has put its John Hancock on.

    At the end of the day AIG did nothing wrong. It did what it was legally obligated to do. Is it distasteful in these times. Perhaps. But just because times are tough, does that warrant putting laws aside? The answer is no, no matter how you look at it.



    The idea that these bonuses are "contractual" and thus required is utter BS. I know plenty of people working under contracts, and guess what, if the company hits bad times or the employee demonstrates gross incompetence (as the AIG employees have), those so-called contracts and the bonuses or compensation they stipulate go right out the window--as they should. Americans have a right to be outraged, and Congress can and should reclaim every cent of those bonuses via heavy taxes (as it looks like they may very well do.)
  • NYCAthlete

    Posts: 132

    Mar 21, 2009 1:34 AM GMT
    I too know many people who's bonuses aren't contractual. Mine was one of them. I got no bonus. Now, we can always dice words and none of us know what AIG means when they use the word "contractual", but at my company "contractual" means exactly that - bound by contract. Those bonuses were still paid out, although those receiving them were asked to take none or less (1.2 billion were still paid out). One thing to note, is that AIG is an enormous company, and it has parts that made money, so those contracts may have required pay out if an area was in the green. Not everyone on Wall Street is responsible for our economic woes. Nor is Wall St alone in taking blame.

    Anywho. Having to post security outside of the offices and outside of the homes of AIG employees is a sad state of affairs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 2:06 AM GMT
    StoneColdChad84 said
    Caslon9000 saidThe man is not going to let this slip by...

    Yes. The man is awesome. A saint. Quintuples a federal deficit by allowing pork projects like fisbee parks in Maine, studies on why pigs smell bad, and paying out Phillipino war reparations to people who don't even live in this country to the tune of $2 TRILLION, yet huffs and puffs and pretends to be upset about $165 MILLION in bonuses that are given out.

    icon_rolleyes.gif


    I thought the budget was supposed to be something over $1 trillion

    Didn't realize that $2 trilliion is now being used to pay Phillipinos and smell pigs. Wow!!!!!!!! how on earth did this slip us all by!!!!!!!!!

    So according to your statements its' now atleast a $3 trillion budget.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 2:16 AM GMT
    NYCAthlete saidI disagree with the sentiment that AIG did something wrong.

    AIG paid out 165 million in -contractual- bonuses. By putting such an emphasis on these bonuses President Obama is taking the wrong stand. You cannot, especially if you are the President of the USA, declare that it would have been correct for any company to break its contractual obligations. Contracts and fulfilling those obligations are a pillar of our capitalist society, and given free will no one would ever fulfill such obligations.

    Do I agree that bonuses on Wall Street can be abnormally high. Yes. Do I agree that all bonuses should be wiped out? No.

    I work on Wall Street. My company received government funds - not US government funds, but government funds nonethless. My company paid out over 1 billion in -contractual- obligations to just a small handful of people. Why? Because they were contractual. So what happened to those of us without contractual obligated bonuses? We got screwed.

    I made thousands of people and institutions a lot of money this year. I had nothing to do with mortgage backed securities. My division beat our earning expectations and were in the green. And hell, I don't even have a mortgage, so I'm not one of those defaulting on a mortgage that caused this issue in the first place.

    I did not, however, receive a bonus this year. I am not some overpaid exec. Luckily for me, I don't rely on a bonus for my living expenses so I'm not out on the street. Am I upset that a small handful of people still walked away with big money this year, even if they were directly responsible for my company losing 45 billion this year? No. I'm jealous, but not mad. That is part of business. Those people are smart enough to lock in a guaranteed bonus because they know times get tough.

    The big picture is that a company can't just cancel its contracts. Just think what would happen if you or your company decided to cancel its contracts. You'd be dragged into court and no one would ever do business with you again. The cost of taking such action would be much greater than the cost of the contracts themselves.

    There are bigger fish to fry than those men and women splitting 165 million.
    Don't blame them for having a contract where you or I did not. And be thankful that a company is willing to honor its contracts it has put its John Hancock on.

    At the end of the day AIG did nothing wrong. It did what it was legally obligated to do. Is it distasteful in these times. Perhaps. But just because times are tough, does that warrant putting laws aside? The answer is no, no matter how you look at it.



    Did their contract state that they would recieve a bonus irrespective of the performance of the company?

    A bonus is paid out from the generated profits. No company pays out bonus otherwise.

    Once again you are speaking as if these contracts couldn't be renegotiated. Any contract can be renegotitated. Just ask the UAW or United Airline workers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2009 2:32 AM GMT
    NYCAthlete saidI too know many people who's bonuses aren't contractual. Mine was one of them. I got no bonus. Now, we can always dice words and none of us know what AIG means when they use the word "contractual", but at my company "contractual" means exactly that - bound by contract. Those bonuses were still paid out, although those receiving them were asked to take none or less (1.2 billion were still paid out). One thing to note, is that AIG is an enormous company, and it has parts that made money, so those contracts may have required pay out if an area was in the green. Not everyone on Wall Street is responsible for our economic woes. Nor is Wall St alone in taking blame.

    Anywho. Having to post security outside of the offices and outside of the homes of AIG employees is a sad state of affairs.


    So if none of us knows what AIG means when they say "contractual" (your words) why on earth then are you here stating that the bonuses had to be paid out?