GarfieldJL Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Specifically, the AIG bonuses, if you do the back checking you'll find that it was all made possible thanks to the current Treasury Secretary, and Senator Chris Dodd (a Democrat). Fact is that their outrage is probably feigned and they are really out to cover their own behinds from public outrage. Looks like more change you can believe in... http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/ Looks like change, is more the same corrupt Chicago style politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Specifically, the AIG bonuses, if you do the back checking you'll find that it was all made possible thanks to the current Treasury Secretary, and Senator Chris Dodd (a Democrat). Fact is that their outrage is probably feigned and they are really out to cover their own behinds from public outrage....or you could be wrong. Ever considered that before? IMO, this was inevitable. The corporations were going to abuse the bailouts, as with any sort of monetary gift that they've received. What was the government's failure was not attaching many strings to each bailout, such as limiting executive salaries (Which has happened now, although it is still quite high), or completely laying off the executives and replacing them with more fiscally responsible ones. Looks like change, is more the same corrupt Chicago style politics.That phrase is so meaningless today that it's more or less a cliche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Question: If Bonus' were part of said employee's contracts, then refusing to give said bonus' would allow said employee's to sue? I believe it is actually called a "Bonus Contract", and that AIG signed them to said employees last year. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/business/17sorkin.html?_r=1 The ripping of those contracts in half could cause legal issues, and lawsuits abound. And I believe AIG now has to pay those Bonus' back themselves: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7949729.stm Fact is that their outrage is probably feigned and they are really out to cover their own behinds from public outrage. "Fact is" ? Seriously, you need more evidence than mere supposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 If you hadn't been paying attention, Dodd claimed he caved to pressure by the Treasury Dept. under President Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 If you hadn't been paying attention, Dodd claimed he caved to pressure by the Treasury Dept. under President Obama. 1. This doesn't make sense. 2. Avery is right. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 20, 2009 Author Share Posted March 20, 2009 1. This doesn't make sense. It's called trying to blame someone else, or singing like a bird. 2. Avery is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Fact is that their outrage is probably feigned and they are really out to cover their own behinds from public outrage. Upon reflection of the situation and articles, I've changed my opinion on this: 1. This doesn't make sense. I think it does. AIG had previously agreed upon contracts, so the administration gave them permission to fuffill said contracts. They now have by giving out the promised bonus', but when the media got wind of this a storm was brewed. While I agree that tax money should be spend wisely (Which, as of yesterday, the Bonus' are no longer tax money http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/aig%5Cs-bonus-payment-to-be-deductedbailout-report/56892/on), I think that the lawsuits that could have followed to various parties over the contracts could have cost more money in the long run. That is simply speculation on my part, so feel free to ignore it if you so choose. 2. Avery is right. While I appreciate the gesture, I'm sure there is a better was to back me up other than this. If you hadn't been paying attention, Dodd claimed he caved to pressure by the Treasury Dept. under President Obama. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/18/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4875279.shtml http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/dodd-treasury-officials-i_n_176609.html Upon looking over today's news, Indeed he did. However, like I said, the bonus' were already contracts. Regardless of how angry the media and democrats/republicans are, AIG was legally bound to give them their agreed upon bonus'. If they had not, not only would AIG be facing lawsuits but so would probably the administration for breaking the contract. Unless I am missing some piece of law, in which I would like to be corrected. It's called trying to blame someone else, or singing like a bird. Quite frankly the media can be as angry as they want about this. It was a small percentage of the overall bailout, they have to pay the bonus' back themselves anyway, and the bonus' were already agreed upon by legally binding contract with said employees. The end. I'm not entirely sure where to take the thread from here. Are we talking about the media's complaints about the bonus, or the bonus' themselves? Because if we are talking about the people reacting to this happening, then I think I agree with you that the parties shouldn't be crying over this. If anything, they are just playing to the anger of the media and people in order to look good. But, then again, this isn't anything new and should pretty much be expected from any political group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 It's called trying to blame someone else, or singing like a bird. It's called the contracts were already in existence, so he really had nothing to do with them. AIG had previously agreed upon contracts, so the administration gave them permission to fuffill said contracts. They now have by giving out the promised bonus', but when the media got wind of this a storm was brewed. How is this a "change in opinion"? You're still correct, and you're still arguing the same point Upon looking over today's news, Indeed he did. However, like I said, the bonus' were already contracts. Regardless of how angry the media and democrats/republicans are, AIG was legally bound to give them their agreed upon bonus'. If they had not, not only would AIG be facing lawsuits but so would probably the administration for breaking the contract. AKA the whole point about him is specious and irrelevant - quite a diversion from the facts. The contracts are contracts, and should be followed. frankly the media can be as angry as they want about this. It was a small percentage of the overall bailout, they have to pay the bonus' back themselves anyway, and the bonus' were already agreed upon by legally binding contract with said employees. The end. Again, where is the change in opinion? Overall, the OP is wrong, for two reasons: 1. "democrats complain" - so do republicans! I've heard something on FoxNews every day this week concerning this. 2. "were involved in allowing" - had no real choice in the matter, so it's not their fault. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 How is this a "change in opinion"? You're still correct, and you're still arguing the same point Didn't change my previous point. Changed my stance on them covering their butts, which seems to be exactly what they are doing. Sorry for the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Upon reflection of the situation and articles, I've changed my opinion on this: I think it does. AIG had previously agreed upon contracts, so the administration gave them permission to fuffill said contracts. They now have by giving out the promised bonus', but when the media got wind of this a storm was brewed. No surprise there. Hand in cookie jar, caught after the fact. While I agree that tax money should be spend wisely (Which, as of yesterday, the Bonus' are no longer tax money http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/aig%5Cs-bonus-payment-to-be-deductedbailout-report/56892/on), I think that the lawsuits that could have followed to various parties over the contracts could have cost more money in the long run. That is simply speculation on my part, so feel free to ignore it if you so choose. Yes. Good point, actually. However, the president has said he's going to more or less tax the living hell out of it, if it wasn't tax money. (shrugs) Set up for a fall or not (form whatever opinion you'd like on that for whatever reason)... First of many to come regardless, I think... could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time, but somehow I do not think so. Given the stated intentions, as well as, let's face it dems do the taxing, this is how it'll work, and how we in part will be "paying" for it. Like it or not. Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Feel free to disagree of course, anyone. I'm just wondering how long before Geithner's ass is finally on the grill. While I appreciate the gesture, I'm sure there is a better was to back me up other than this. I believe I sort of did that above... Quite frankly the media can be as angry as they want about this. It was a small percentage of the overall bailout, they have to pay the bonus' back themselves anyway, and the bonus' were already agreed upon by legally binding contract with said employees. The end. Those executive producers know the times are turbulent and that the people are anxious. The hysteria? Frankly, it sells because we buy it; buy into it. Target audience--basic narratio of english papers/reports and also a major focus in TV production concepts. I don't remember the specifics of texts I read in high school for my 0 period class, but in general they teach you how to make dynamic casts by taking various factors in. I have 5 years experience and would try to answer questions to the best I can. I'm not entirely sure where to take the thread from here. Are we talking about the media's complaints about the bonus, or the bonus' themselves? I think the bonuses themselves are more relevant to the topic. Though I could try to provide a glimpse into the media aspect about this as well. Because if we are talking about the people reacting to this happening, then I think I agree with you that the parties shouldn't be crying over this. Frankly they aren't really. The ones all up in that right now (media) are gauging public reactions and probably judging how to toss it next according to a variety of factors (slant, orders from above, audience, desired reaction, reaction trend/curve, target audience, incoming new info 'hot from press' as it were); the parties are rolling with the punches and seeing what leverage they can get against the other if not gaining some kind of secure foothold on all fronts. So far as the money itself? The end result will pretty much be the same regardless. The difference is origination. Personally it was a 'loaded deal' much in the same way that one can ask a loaded question (a fallacy, yes). My cynical view of it: total monkey stunt to divert attention from something else. Pretty much 'ass-covering' as was said above. Again, anyone can feel free to disagree. Of just whom is the subject of controversy, specualtion and much debate to follow. Or so I rather suspect. If anything, they are just playing to the anger of the media and people in order to look good. But, then again, this isn't anything new and should pretty much be expected from any political group. Yeah. I'd love to find an executive producer and throw an angry raccoon in his pants. I hate those bastards. So far as the average citizen, to my experience most don't really care on the day to day, they just pay attention to the media because it is easiest and they are preoccupied with their daily lives. Savvy types on the other hand can detach themselves from it and analyze just what is going on to their best abilities. Not infallible. Still, it is kind of a step ahead in that these are the ones concerned with the underlying problems however are beset by not only their rivalry on the other side, but largely the hordes of folks who are not as savvy. Just my 2 cents on the matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would say we should seperate out the execs that didn't run their companies into the ground, from the execs that ran their companies into the ground. Some execs deserve the high pay (the ones that didn't trash the companies they work for), in some cases there are execs that turned companies around and managed to get them to make a profit. That being said, MSNBC got caught by newsbusters, trying to blame the Republicans for the AIG mess. Now granted some things shouldn't have been deregulated in 1999, but people that voted for the deregulation include a lot of Democrats that are now kicking and screaming over the AIG bonuses. Furthermore, Republicans tried to push for a few of these entities to be under more regulation in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Also the current Secretary of Treasury wrote a lot of the stuff for the AIG Bailout. More Information: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/dodds_wife_a_former_director_o.html Seems Senator Dodd is more closely tied to AIG than we've been led to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I would say we should seperate out the execs that didn't run their companies into the ground, from the execs that ran their companies into the ground. Some execs deserve the high pay (the ones that didn't trash the companies they work for), in some cases there are execs that turned companies around and managed to get them to make a profit.No one, and I mean no one, truly deserves a salary of several million, or even $500,000 annually. Besides, how would one determine which executives "Failed" and whom "succeeded"? As far as I'm concerned, they were all in cahoots, and they should all be fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 No one, and I mean no one, truly deserves a salary of several million, or even $500,000 annually. I respectfully disagree with you here. A person has every right to earn as much income as he or she wants to as long as they do it both legally and ethically... Besides, how would one determine which executives "Failed" and whom "succeeded"? As far as I'm concerned, they were all in cahoots, and they should all be fired. ...and anyone who doesn't deserves to be thrown to the wolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I respectfully disagree with you here. A person has every right to earn as much income as he or she wants to as long as they do it both legally and ethically...Oh, yeah, I'd really agree with that. People should be allowed to make as much as they want, but only if their subordinates are payed generously, too. However, it doesn't apply to AIG, Bank of America, or any other corporate execs attached to this fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Oh, yeah, I'd really agree with that. People should be allowed to make as much as they want, but only if their subordinates are payed generously, too. Yeah, that's part of what I meant by "ethically." As much as some fat-cats make, they could afford to pay their subordinates out the ass and still make out like bandits. However, it doesn't apply to AIG, Bank of America, or any other corporate execs attached to this fiasco. No arguments here. I'm still waiting for careers to end, for charges to be filed and for some very deserving people to go to prison, but that's not going to happen, probably because too many politicians on both sides of the aisle would be implicated in all of that rampant malfeasance. And we wouldn't want their careers to end and for them to go to prison for betraying the trust of the American people now, would we? As if we needed any more proof that there is no justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On_Your_Six Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 So... Fox (not news unless you want to spell Fox as Faux) prints an article, veinly attempting to spin this latest in bailouts as a problem that began and solely is, because of the Democrats (forgetting that the Senate works as a bipartisan entity, so naturally the people of America aren't getting constitutional representation anyways), and not because of the Republicans and what they had been doing for the last 8 years, the United States being screwed within the first 4 of those years? Hilarious. Let's also forget that the last Democratic party in power changed what was (at the time) the largest deficit the United States had ever faced (ushered in by Reagan and moreso by Daddy Bush) into an actual surplus (yes the Bush Jr Administration was faced with a surplus and squandered that within three years). Fast Forward to last November when Bush was already approving (MUCH) larger bailout figures than what AIG got, and the fact that at this point (nevermind last year when he was approving 360 Billion dollar War *ahem* plans) that he doesn't care that the country is trillions in debt, the fact of the matter is that Obama inherited that. I don't care what you say, but this fiasco is a joke compared to the actual fiascoes that have been going on, hopefully this will lead to a reflection on accountability when it comes to divesting bail out plans to such corporations, but, never forget, the American political system is bilateral and bipartisan, all the Fed's are doing now is paying back a -tiny- bit of money that all those corporations have been lobbying your righteous senators with for years. Anyways, never quote from Faux News again, I think if all of their outlets (starting with O'Reilly) were nuked off the face of the Earth before Iran, we'd have some peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 If you look at the situation you'd find that AIG primarily contributed to Democrats, not Republicans the two people that got the most money from them were Senator Chris Dodd and President Obama. The people that blocked regulations of Freddie Mac were Democrats, not Republicans. If you're going to blame people for something do some research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Anyways, never quote from Faux News again, I think if all of their outlets (starting with O'Reilly) were nuked off the face of the Earth before Iran, we'd have some peace. Yeah, then we'd be stuck with just the left spin on events from all of the other *snort* "news" organizations and with no dissenting opinion whatsoever. Great. I wonder if it will ever reach a point where this ridiculous propaganda war becomes so laughable that a genuine news organization whose only purpose is to report the facts is born of it. I hope so, because I'm tired of having to strain my news through a filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On_Your_Six Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 If you -really- looked at the situation, you'd have taken my point about bilateral/bipartisan system a bit more seriously and did some research of your own, and be fair, look at both Dem's and Rep's. But nothing says anything more clearly than the fact that it was George W. who signed this whole bill to begin with. Dodd was merely in charge of turning it into something that could actually rejuvenate the sorry state the financial situation in the country is. No damned easy task. 700 Billion plus. But let's have a "real" (moreso) news corporation take a crack at it. From money.cnn.com "Democrats who switched to "yes" votes include Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md. Cummings noted before the vote that this was the most difficult vote for him in his 12 years in Congress. "But today we must step up and lead," he said. Earlier this week, Cummings and Edwards were part of a group that had been working on an alternate proposal. The lawmakers had lobbied strongly but unsuccessfully to include, among other things, a change to the bankruptcy law that would let judges modify mortgages on primary residences, a move the lending industry has strongly opposed. Cummings and Edwards said they had received calls from Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, encouraging them to change their minds. They said they received assurances that he was committed to the bankruptcy provision." Perhaps I should have included more of the lead up to this excerpt, but I'll trust that you're not so completely thick and actually read this and think for yourself: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008100309 But yeah, let's blame the Democrats since they're in power now, and of course this whole situation right from the get go is also somehow their problem. Seriously, how can you seriously throw this tripe at thinking people there, Garf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 I don't really care what CNN says, I've got stuff where the Dems are caught on tape covering for these firms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&NR=1 And seriously, how about you watch the video or do you not consider a video tape of these People in their own words to be a credible enough source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 If you -really- looked at the situation, you'd have taken my point about bilateral/bipartisan system a bit more seriously and did some research of your own, and be fair, look at both Dem's and Rep's. [...] Perhaps I should have included more of the lead up to this excerpt, but I'll trust that you're not so completely thick and actually read this and think for yourself: [...] let's blame the Democrats since they're in power now, and of course this whole situation right from the get go is also somehow their problem. [...] Seriously, how can you seriously throw this tripe at thinking people there, Garf. You must be new to the Senate _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 Even Senator McCain blasted the democrats for being partisan here recently, and actually accused them of "Generational Theft." Seriously get your facts straight... Here is more Evidence concerning Freddie Mac Back to stimulus bills: Senator John McCain: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505927,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On_Your_Six Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Haha, that I am, Ender (took me a sec to understand what you meant by Senate, then I remembered the subforum name). Get my facts straight? My friend, your facts are as straight as Bill O'Reilly's and just as ignored. But thanks for actually reading, good to know you understand what I mean by bipartisan. *thumbs up* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 23, 2009 Author Share Posted March 23, 2009 Haha, that I am, Ender (took me a sec to understand what you meant by Senate, then I remembered the subforum name). Get my facts straight? My friend, your facts are as straight as Bill O'Reilly's and just as ignored. But thanks for actually reading, good to know you understand what I mean by bipartisan. *thumbs up* I'll take that as a compliment because Mr. O'Reilly does get his facts straight, and you can't argue with a primary sources where the Dems get caught by videos from C-Span. Further for the Record, Mr. O'Reilly isn't a woman. The interview I just posted up was done by Greta Van Susteren, so I can tell you didn't even read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 But let's have a "real" (moreso) news corporation take a crack at it. From money.cnn.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.