AIG and the Nazis

[Slowlane]

Isn't that what the left wants for all "rich" people?

They want them (and everybody else) to vomit money.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Defending AIG bonuses after they got bailed out.

A new low for this motley crew.

 

[Lancecastor]

Lance, let's start with a little truth here. I don't care if there's a Communist Party, or a Socialist Party either. I only ask that the politicos call themselves what they are. I'm afraid that the drive to purge ourselves of communists, as well founded as that might have been at the time, has only yeilded us a bunch of liars. There are unintended consequences to every action.

If Obama and the democrats don't reel it in, I'm not too certain that there will even be a social democracy. The market isn't going to come back for at least 10 years. I don't care who's in office. Obama can be as rosy as he wants, or go back to doom and gloom and push that date out even further. The baby boomers have collectively decided that the government has fucked them over. They've gone into wealth preservation mode and they aren't going to be buying anything they don't need. And they represent the greater wealth of the nation. All of that money is gone from the markets and it's not coming back. Certainly not under Obama who has promised nothing more than more uncertainty.

Yes, he's a 'one termer' which the devote will trumpet to the world that the US is still racist. It matters not that he's an over-achieving ghetto agitator who is more concerned with forwarding a social agenda than governing a nation of diverse cultures. And it doesn't matter who replaces him, repubilcan or democrat. The demographics of the wealth will be four years older and even less inclined to engage in risk investments.

The nation won't come out of this until the succeeding generation begins to build it's own wealth. If it's allowed to. And there in lies the danger. While we may be in the outhouse, the rest of the world is sub-letting the basement. All sorts of manevolent organisms breed in that petri dish.

Ishmael

I guess it could go that way...or, like all the other times, consumers will start spending again and all will be forgotten.

I liked this today though:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A prominent US Senator has suggested that top executives of the bailed-out insurer AIG ought to quit or kill themselves

 

[CaptainKirk]

I guess it could go that way...or, like all the other times, consumers will start spending again and all will be forgotten.

I liked this today though:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A prominent US Senator has suggested that top executives of the bailed-out insurer AIG ought to quit or kill themselves

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Saw him on the news this morning. Very subtle, wasn't he?

 

[Cade Is Here]

All the nazi love on this board....lol

 

[Lost Cause]

http://blog.cleveland.com/nationworld_impact/2008/07/large_KanzlerGermany_Obama_2008_Meye.JPG

 

[KingOrfeo]

It makes me want to vomit.

No doubt; but that reflects badly on you, not on Congress.

 

[hogjack]

A contract is a contract. Breaking this one will break the Constitution.

Ishmael

The U.S. Constitution has survived worse.

You should get a girl and rent "National Treasure".

 

[Xplorr7]

Ooops (Dodd and Obama)

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG) bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.

The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the senator.

While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.

The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is [was signed into] law [by President Obama]. (emphasis added)

Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.

Full article: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/

Maybe Obama should have read the "Stimulus" Package bill before he signed it.

 

[Ishmael]

As pointed out in the immediately previous post, Dodd, one of the circus clowns busily trumpeting his outrage over the AIG bonuses, actually wrote into legislation the law that exempted them from having to forego paying the bonuses to begin with.

The bonuses and the schedule of payments were put out to the press OVER A YEAR AGO in an AIG press release and the info. was even carried in many newspapers (The San Jose Mercury for one to be specific) and now both the press and the congress, and the president are acting as if this is a last minute backroom sneak deal that AIG is engaged in. It's all an act folks, the only question is what are the clowns trying to cover up? It's obvious that the democrats were aware and complicit from the git go.

And now congress is talking about taking action against specific individuals who did nothing more than engage in perfectly legal contract negotiations over a year ago. The purpose of the act congress is proposing is to strip these individuals of the procedes of their contracts. You, each and everyone of you, better start being very afraid if congress does take that action and the clown in the white house signs it into law.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

No, no gentlemen; you misunderstood. I was talking about the general public's knee-jerk reaction. You're right, Slow. Government officials should get beyond the "jerk" and stop playing the "blame game", and start dealing some fact-finding cards.



Funny, that's what we told the UAW and GM... but nobody's listening. They can knife into me all they want; leave my father's pension alone! He didn't work 32 years for nothing!

If "a contract's a contract", they should all be upheld. If one gets broken, they all get broken. If mine gets broken but AIG's doesn't (just because they're "bigger"), is that fair to me and the rest of us?

Contract law can get really convoluted in the detail, so maybe someone with more contract law experience than I have will chime in.

In a contract of two parties any one party can attempt to change the terms of the contract. But unless the second party agrees to it, it's probably going to end up in court. If BOTH parties agree to reopen the contract for modification, then they may do so. And that is pretty much what's happening with the UAW and the auto makers. The Union members themselves have no contract, the contract is held by the union. You, as a union member, don't have a leg to stand on. You can leave the union, or join with your fellow members to sue the union, although I don't have a clue as to what you might win if you prevailed in the courts.

The AIG contracts were personal contracts. Each recipient of the bonuses had their own contract and while most of them were boiler plate, they were contracts executed between the company and the individual. Unless the various individuals consent to reopen the contract, it is what it is and the company is compelled to live up to their portion of the contract.

Back to the UAW, the auto workers, and the government. The reasons the government wants to keep the companies from going tits up are two fold, the first is a payoff to the unions, the second is to try to preserve a segment of the economy, and last, but not least, is the fact that the government would have to pick up ALL of the retirement accounts from those companies, albeit at a reduced payout rate. The government doesn't want to absorb those retirement responsibilitites.

This is a case of a union being far too successful in their collective bargaining tactics. The companies agreed to contracts that were unsustainable in the long term. It's been known for decades upon decades that the auto industry was very vulnerable to the effects of economic downturns. Over 20 years of uninterrupted economic growth spoiled everyone. The unions, the companies, and the government can all step up and take their turn in the dunking stool. They're all to blame.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

I guess it could go that way...or, like all the other times, consumers will start spending again and all will be forgotten.

I liked this today though:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A prominent US Senator has suggested that top executives of the bailed-out insurer AIG ought to quit or kill themselves

There's a little problem there Lance. The CEO of AIG is a hand-picked instrument of the treasury dept. When all the facts are considered, Grassley looks like an even bigger clown than he usually does.

Ishmael

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

There's a little problem there Lance. The CEO of AIG is a hand-picked instrument of the treasury dept. When all the facts are considered, Grassley looks like an even bigger clown than he usually does.

Ishmael

I'm sure the board of directors at AIG would be surprised to find out that they didn't select the CEO and that the Treasury Department dictated who would lead the company.

Do you just pull this shit out of thin air?
My magic 8 ball says "yes, definitely"

 

[Ishmael]

I'm sure the board of directors at AIG would be surprised to find out that they didn't select the CEO and that the Treasury Department dictated who would lead the company.

Do you just pull this shit out of thin air?
My magic 8 ball says "yes, definitely"

It's all in the news stupid. Liddy was pulled in as a condition of the first bailout package. The board did have a choice, but not much of a choice.

I'm sure you can goggle it up if you want to. Or you can keep posting inane shit. Whatever.

Ishmael

 

[Mike_Yates]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hpa6vPdBEU

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

.009%





It's the Dubai Ports Deal, Glow Ball Warning, and the HIV "epidemic" in DC all rolled into one sweet treat for Congressional "outrage" and pandering showmanship; give them a circus, maybe they won't look for the bread (or the car payment they didn't get; "rich" people [Democrats, of course] "stole" it from them...).

Yeah government schools, the cry and havoc is BONUSES! BONUSES!
Those people should be "FIRED!!!"
They were...

DOH!

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

It's all in the news stupid. Liddy was pulled in as a condition of the first bailout package. The board did have a choice, but not much of a choice.

I'm sure you can goggle it up if you want to. Or you can keep posting inane shit. Whatever.

Ishmael

Well considering the entire thread has been inane bullshit I figured why add anything of substance now?

Keep bleating that what AIG has done is legal, that's very different from right, and the American people are pissed that their taxes are being siphoned into the coffers of the executives that drove the company into needing a bailout in the first place.

Of course AIG had a choice, so their CEO wasn't really handpicked as you claimed was he?

BTW: It's google, not goggle. Goggles are what your dates are wearing when you pick them up.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

It's all in the news stupid. Liddy was pulled in as a condition of the first bailout package. The board did have a choice, but not much of a choice.

I'm sure you can goggle it up if you want to. Or you can keep posting inane shit. Whatever.

Ishmael

Geitner "wrote" the deal and Dodd protected Democrat contributor's bonuses, in the dead of night, in a plan nobody read, despite all the campaign promises to let the public scrutinize all legislation from the Obama administration, and now Dodd's (and El Presidente) "OUTRAGED!!!"



Schocked, SCHOCKED to find gambling going on at Rick's...



And don't you know it, the pork was ignored because everybody and everything Democrat is simply "too big to fail!"

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Yeah, UD, it's in the news; the guy who successfully ran the company for 40 years was pushed out by the Dems (he was a huge Republican contributor) and replaced by another Scooter (*joke*) who, like almost every other person involved in the passion play, was a Democrat contributor...





Every coin, every story, every scandal has at least two sides, not just DNC talking points.




He was obstensibly "damage control" for Timmy who was doing as he was directed and now becomes a convenient scapegoat to keep your eyes off the rank incompetence of the Obamanation...

 

[Ishmael]

UD is more interested in 'killing the goat' than improving his own lot in life. He, and others like him, never seem to understand that finding a scapegoat isn't the same as solving the problem.

If congress does confiscate the bonuses UD will wake up the next morning and feel as if his bank account has swelled by some proportion, his bills have been paid, and his life has become easier by some measure. Of course none of that will be true, but he'll 'feel' as if it were.

Ishmael

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Agree.






Like I said before, envy is the root of all evil.





Which thread was it yesterday that everyone was saying Obama is a one-termer? I have more to add...

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I see lots of finger pointing on who killed the part of the bill that would have limited executive bonuses when it was in conference, but not an iota of fact to back up the accusations. Even the authors don't know who it was that stripped the portion of the bill that would have prevented this debacle over CEO payouts.

I do remember who it was raising holy hell about the proposed legislation limiting CEO bonus pay though.. Something about government meddling in the free market and it spreading to ALL CEOs not just those receiving bailout cash.


Not surprising that you try to lay it at the feet of a Democratic politician though Cap'n Hypocrite.

In reality these CEO bonuses are small potatoes compared to the massive payouts to foreign banks by AIG. This is the issue that people should be furious over in addition to the CEO golden parachutes.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

UD is more interested in 'killing the goat' than improving his own lot in life. He, and others like him, never seem to understand that finding a scapegoat isn't the same as solving the problem.

If congress does confiscate the bonuses UD will wake up the next morning and feel as if his bank account has swelled by some proportion, his bills have been paid, and his life has become easier by some measure. Of course none of that will be true, but he'll 'feel' as if it were.

Ishmael

From circle jerk to Igor's goat in three posts, a new record.

Sen. McCarthy would be proud.

Why is it that "Conservatives" talk so much about personal responsibility until it comes time to actually find out who is responsible for something? Then it's simply not important to assign blame to a problem..

I can only guess that they mean only when it's holding someone ELSE responsible.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yeah, UD, it's in the news; the guy who successfully ran the company for 40 years was pushed out by the Dems (he was a huge Republican contributor) and replaced by another Scooter (*joke*) who, like almost every other person involved in the passion play, was a Democrat contributor...


Every coin, every story, every scandal has at least two sides, not just DNC talking points.

He was obstensibly "damage control" for Timmy who was doing as he was directed and now becomes a convenient scapegoat to keep your eyes off the rank incompetence of the Obamanation...

If the former CEO "successfully ran the company for 40 years" then why were they in need of such massive bailout amounts?

I would guess that his performance has slipped a bit over the last few years or so. Ya think?

 

[Sharon_]

I see lots of finger pointing on who killed the part of the bill that would have limited executive bonuses when it was in conference, but not an iota of fact to back up the accusations.

And why is that? SOMEONE knows who did it.
...and they ALL would've known about it had they been given a chance to actually *READ* it before voting on it.

I blame every single one of them who voted "Aye" on a piece of legislation that none of them even friggen' read.

Not surprising that you try to lay it at the feet of a Democratic politician though Cap'n Hypocrite.

Now...which party was it that point blank refused to let the Senators and House read the bill?

And which party was it who was in conference? And closed door conference at that.....let's see, as I recall it it was TWO Republican Senators and all the others were Democrats.