AIG; Bill of Attainder; Contracts

[amicus]

AIG; Bill of Attainder




http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Bill-of-Attainder.htm


While billions of dollars of the 'TARP' funds went to foreign countries, namely, Britain, France, Switzerland and many more, a piddling amount, yes, in the face of tens of billions, a piddling amount, 165 million, with an 'm', is being used as a detraction from the true wasteful effects of 'bailout' programs over the past six months.

For that relatively 'small' amount of money the new administration has vowed to break legal contracts and retro-actively punish the recipients of, 'bonus' payments. This is patently illegal in terms of 'tainted', wealth or income as determined within the legal concept of the 'Bill of Attainder'.

Bonus payments to AIG employees were contractual agreements made before bailout funds were given and government officials were aware of the contracts and the bonus's to be paid. But 'soak the rich', continues to be the premise in this administration as yet another Democrat proclaimed: "...we will tax those with the ability to pay..." Shades of Marxism; 'take from those of ability and give to those of need..' wunnerful...

Further examples that the new administration is in complete chaos and is in far over their intellectual abilities, is the most recent gaff in enacting 'Protectionist' tactics against Mexico over a total of 98, 18 Wheelers in a 'pilot program', to permit Mexican trucks drive across the border and deliver goods to the interior of America.

This violates NAFTA, free trade agreements and has already brought backlash from the Mexican government that has increased tariff's(taxes) on American goods going into Mexico to the tune of over 250 Billion, with a B, dollar in trade goods.

This episode is another Union payoff, this time to the Teamsters Union, who want a 'buy American only' posture from the White House. It will increase the cost of goods, slow trade and create more unemployment in the US. Great going guys!

In addition, critics, including former Vice President Cheney, have denounced plans of the new administration, as making the possibility of another terrorist attack more likely.

In an attempt to assuage the 'slump' in the new Presidents ratings he will turn to Jay Leno for 'softball' questions all intended to shore up the failing policies of the new administration.

Appearing on the Tonight's show, is said to demean both the office of President and the Man and expose his desperate appeal for public support as his policies fail, one after another.

If you thought the nation's capitol was in a turmoil under Bush; you ain't seen nuthin' yet. Two years plus of a Democrat majority in Congress and now the Executive branch as well and it just seems to be getting worse.

I wonder why?

Stay tuned...

Amicus

 

[sr71plt]

(I didn't read your verbose posting, but) so, how do you feel about the bonuses paid to the AIG executives.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Doesnt matter. Americans dont care about the legality of it, slavery was legal, too.

The thieves got their money. Had AIG failed they wouldnt.

It will be the undoing of Obama.

 

[amicus]

The 'undoing' of far more than that, JBJ. If government can void a legal contract on any grounds, then no contract private or public is sacred if it can be broken at any time.

This will kill any attempt anyone at any level has to make a contractual agreement. This strikes at the very core of the free market system and the integrity of both government and industry to contract anything.

Even that is secondary to the nearly 50 billion dollars sent overseas to bailout foreign banks and lending associations.

What a mess, Ollie!

amicus...

 

[DesertPirate]

The "genious" that was so nessesary to "get this mess under control" as SecTreas. is the same one who wrote the AIG bailout plan.
He knew about those contract bonuses and lied to Congress about it last week.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Americans believe lawyers and laws fuck them.

Lincoln faced the same problem.

Had Obama told AIG to fuck itself and screw the bonuses, he woulda reaped plenty of support. But he pissed away his glory.

 

[amicus]

Heard on the news that both Geitner and Sommers heads are going to fall over this incident, dunno, the administration says they 'continue to have faith in both...", go figure.

This idea about government interfering in private business, is amazing to say the least, but does emphasize the Nationalization of an industry as the government now owns 80 percent of AIG.

I was on the receiving end of 'bonus' payments a long while back and it was merit based, you reach a certain goal, you get extra pay. I wasn't running with the multi millionaire club so I really cannot address, first hand, what those AIG employees did to receive the million dollar plus bonus, but then it is not my right to do so, neither is it the right of government. And this silly assed notion to tax them, 100 percent unless they voluntarily return the bonus, is pure charlatanism from DC, and thas more than...just...shocking!

ami

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Can't violate the contracts, but you can punish the company for its idiocy. Sounds like they're going to deduct the $165 million from the next bailout payment. I hope the British government does the same with RBS after the debacle over Fred Goodwin's £700,000 a year pension reward for the biggest corporate failure in British history.

Governments need to get on top of this perceived unfairness fast otherwise there's going to be massive civic unrest.

 

[sr71plt]

Heard on the news that both Geitner and Sommers heads are going to fall over this incident, dunno, the administration says they 'continue to have faith in both...", go figure.

This idea about government interfering in private business, is amazing to say the least, but does emphasize the Nationalization of an industry as the government now owns 80 percent of AIG.

I was on the receiving end of 'bonus' payments a long while back and it was merit based, you reach a certain goal, you get extra pay. I wasn't running with the multi millionaire club so I really cannot address, first hand, what those AIG employees did to receive the million dollar plus bonus, but then it is not my right to do so, neither is it the right of government. And this silly assed notion to tax them, 100 percent unless they voluntarily return the bonus, is pure charlatanism from DC, and thas more than...just...shocking!

ami

The AIG bonuses really can't be based on "merit" since those same senior executives screwed the business up to begin with.

 

[amicus]

I can agree with your sentiment, but not the object.

There is a false feeling floating about that increased control and regulation of the industry is a proper course of action; I think not.

It was government creation and manipulation of the Mortgage entities, Fannie and Freddie, that began this entire cascade of mortage and insurance and bank failures. I do not see how government can 'fix' a mess that they created but refuse to claim responsibility for.

The market system, had government not been involved, would first of all, never made those toxic loans and any bank or lender that did would have suffered bankruptcy, but not an entire industry or the economy of nations for that matter.

Why some advocate more government intervention when it is demonstrable that the intervention they already committed has failed completely.

Amicus...

 

[DesertPirate]

It would have been cheaper to let AIG fail and then the Execs could have tried to sue for their bonuses
I'd rather hire mediocre talent.
These seem to be bonuses designed to keep "top talent" from going elsewhere. If this is what top talent does to a company, I'd rather have mediocre talent at one third the price. Probably still have a company too.

 

[amicus]

One can agree again, DP, but I offer that the background radiation in terms of being coerced by government to provide loans to buyers they knew would default, was the job these employees were caught up in.

Yes, sordid, without a doubt, but it is rather like accusing an assembly line worker in a factory making bullets to be guilty of how those bullets were used.

Ami

 

[JackLuis]

This is why we have three branches of Government. The Executive , Legislative and Judiciary.

The Executive can whine in concert with the mood of the people to try and retain public support, The Legislative can piss and moan to gain public approval and both can rest assured the the Judiciary will take the heat by enforcing the Law.

If the Government had let AIG go down and "Bought" AIG's assetts, then they would have a leg to stand on to refuse the bonuses. As it is it appears now, AIG can continue to live up to the contracts and there is not one thing the Pres' can do about it.

 

[DesertPirate]

One can agree again, DP, but I offer that the background radiation in terms of being coerced by government to provide loans to buyers they knew would default, was the job these employees were caught up in.

Yes, sordid, without a doubt, but it is rather like accusing an assembly line worker in a factory making bullets to be guilty of how those bullets were used.

Ami

I suspect that the unfettered trading of bad paper between companies is the secondary cause. Does any of these banks have the original paperwork on a mortgage they now own?
Just proves that the hometown banks were much better than the corporate ones.

 

[amicus]

You read the information and what facts they make public, quite the same as I, JL, and, believe it or not, I try to listen and understand everything that comes over the newswires on this subject and it is staggering.

AIG is a global corporation, insuring such things as Oil Platforms against Hurricanes and hundreds more from a list that flashed on a screen.

I see it as the heart in a series of vessels that feed the extremities of the business community around the world. Stop that heart, the vessels contract, the businesses fail and a world wide depression, not recession would happen.

That is what I hear...dunno...not my area of expertise, but it appear that government taking over AIG would not solve the problem.

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

So, you think those bonuses are just hunky dory, right?

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Government intervention and regulation should only extend to:

i) Prevention of monopoly or otherwise excessive market dominance.
ii) Prevention of companies becoming so large and entangled so that a company can fail without bringing down large sections of the economy with it.

 

[DesertPirate]

Government intervention and regulation should only extend to:

i) Prevention of monopoly or otherwise excessive market dominance.
ii) Prevention of companies becoming so large and entangled so that a company can fail without bringing down large sections of the economy with it.

Amen!

 

[amicus]

Government intervention and regulation should only extend to:

i) Prevention of monopoly or otherwise excessive market dominance.
ii) Prevention of companies becoming so large and entangled so that a company can fail without bringing down large sections of the economy with it.[/QUOTE]


~~~

That was the intention of the Anti Trust Legislation and Smoot-Hawley, although that may be labor related...memory...and in my opinion it does not work as clever entrepreneurs, as always, find a way around any laws or restrictions.

Monopolies cannot occur in a free market environment if government acts as it is authorized to protect property rights and respond to threats or intimidation. If a large corporation attempts to take advantage of its position, a dozen smaller start-ups will eagerly fill the void.

Government is the largest business in the world. Again, the market place will determine the size of a business and how influential it becomes. Only government can create a monopoly or create a business large enough to bring down large sections of the economy, as the mortgage crisis has shown.

Private enterprise would never have made such risky loans and only the 'social manipulation', of providing low income minorities with homes, which became a government project, was able to coerce the rest of the market to follow.

No one likes to hear a defense of the free market, Capitalism, I know that, but still, it is what I do and have done for nearly half a century.

Bad habits, I guess?

Amicus...

 

[Handprints]

I'm not remotely impartial on this issue, so I'll do my best to separate this post into one bit on what I think (and am told) is actually happening with AIG's bonus payments and one bit on what I think is a fair response.

These aren't bonus payments in the sense of a reward for some achievement - employee of the month with a big cheque-type bonuses. They are pre-negotiated guaranteed minimum bonus payments that are part of the employment contract that was signed when the recipient was hired. It's basically an accounting fiddle. The company runs a lower basic payroll, which looks good to the analysts, and can claim (falsely) that its interests are aligned with shareholders' by paying for performance. In fact, something like a third of the bonus pool in a good year goes in guaranteed bonus payment of the type now in the spotlight at AIG. Clearly, in a bad year, the fiddle doesn't work. (In most places, separating salary from "bonus" also has some useful tax implications for the recipient, especially if the bonus is paid into a pension.) The point is that, whatever internal accounting pool the money is paid out of, these aren't really bonuses, they are, according to just about every nation's employment law, including the US', salary, as defined in the employment contract. Probably something like 5% of AIG 's USD165m pool is actual "you did something special" bonus money, probably for finding grounds to cancel an expensive contract...


I'm not about to attempt to convince anyone that this is a good system. I have been the beneficiary of a guaranteed bonus in past employment - it's a common recruiting tool in the financial industry - and I'm as cynical about its value as a smokescreen as the next guy. I doubt you can get much of this money back, except by fiat, and I'm not fond of rewriting laws to slake the polity's thirst for punishment. What little consolation is on offer, for those who want AIG's worker bees hung, drawn and quartered, is that they're unlikely to be employable in the next few years, if ever again, at anything more than a fraction of their peak earnings. Let it go, make guaranteed bonuses horribly tax-punitive in future if the system really aggravates you, name and shame anyone receiving a bonus to further depress their employment chances if you must, and move on: you have bigger fish to fry.

Hope that's of interest (and congratulations for reading my 500th post - EDIT: damn! 501st - I must have missed one somewhere...)
H

 

[amicus]

It reads 501 here, but congratulations anyway, I also remember that landmark in my early days.

And thank you for the clarification and amplification of my feeble efforts to defend the 'worker bees' at AIG.

I trust life is treating you well and those lil 'poppers', with the long name that I cannot recall, are as tasty as ever!

regards...

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Golly gee, everyone in here seems to think those "merit" bonuses for driving AIG in the ground are great stuff. Yep, just the free market at work in its natural state.

 

[manyeyedhydra]

Golly gee, everyone in here seems to think those "merit" bonuses for driving AIG in the ground are great stuff. Yep, just the free market at work in its natural state.

Not me.

In a 'free' market AIG would have gone bust and been replaced by a competitor with a more sensible business model. No company = no bonuses.

We don't really have free markets, just a godawful tangled mess heavily stacked in favour of a small minority.

 

[sr71plt]

In a 'free' market AIG would have gone bust and been replaced by a competitor with a more sensible business model. No company = no bonuses.

But they would have gone bust giving those sweet bonuses and kiss-off deals to the executives who were running the business into the ground--which is the business model unfettered by regulations or control.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HANDPRINTS

Let me spell it out for you with a simple farm fable.

A guy named Tom got married and brought his bride to his farm. One morning Tom was in the barn milking the cow, and the cow swatted Tom with her tail several times. So Tom got a small ladder and some rope, climbed up behind the cow to tie her tail to a joist, and his bride walked in the barn. The bride see's Tom up, behind the cow, trying to move her tail out of his way.

Most Americans draw the same conclusion about AIG.