Voted No, They've been fucking us for years. What made you think it would stop you silly slaves?!
Poll
Are you outraged?
| Yes | 77% | 77% - 67 | ||||
| No | 22% | 22% - 20 | ||||
| Total: 87 | ||||||
Am I outraged? JUST as outraged as I am for our govt. giving them money in the first place ( or anyone else)Stingray24 wrote:
Explain your answer ...
No because the administration gave congress an hour to read a 1200 page bill before voting on it and the rules in the bill had no repercussions and was based on the honor system
their fault not aigs
their fault not aigs
SealXo wrote:
No because the administration gave congress an hour to read a 1200 page bill before voting on it and the rules in the bill had no repercussions and was based on the honor system
their fault not aigs
Reminds me of a rather large bill that our govt. tried to force through. $40 billion in economy stimulus and they wanted it through in under 24 hours? lolwat. Give it 3 or 4 days debate at least ffs.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
im not outraged about American Intercontinental Greed Inc. giving that amount of bonuses to their CEO's.. i have know it for years. thats american capitalism at is best= make the richer more richer and the poorer even more poorer. 8 years ago i wanted to invest some money in the stock market, so i can have some money in the future. but i decided not to. and to this day i realized why and thankful i made good decision
Do you know what I heard offered as an out there? "Oh, Their aides read it for them. They all had someone reading it for them." ffsSealXo wrote:
No because the administration gave congress an hour to read a 1200 page bill before voting on it and the rules in the bill had no repercussions and was based on the honor system
their fault not aigs
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I like how the government gives billions to loser companies after telling us they are too big to fail and then attempts to demonize the same corporations.
Why don't they just come out and say it;
" the free market is as free as we let it be. We are a bunch of neo-marxist. We, the government own A.I.G. "
Why don't they just come out and say it;
" the free market is as free as we let it be. We are a bunch of neo-marxist. We, the government own A.I.G. "
interesting article on the bonuses...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … nuses.html
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," the president said on Monday. "Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
Well, because in the short run, hammering the AIG employees to give back their bonuses risks costing the government more than honoring the contracts would. The worst malefactors at AIG are gone. The new top management isn't taking bonuses. Those in the bonus pool are making sums that for most of us would be astronomical, but are significantly less than what they used to make. Driving away the very people who understand how to fix this complicated mess may make everyone else feel better, but it isn't particularly cost-effective.
In the longer term, having the government void existing contracts, directly or indirectly, as with the suggestions of a punitive tax on such bonuses, will make enterprises less likely to enter into arrangements with the government -- even when that is in the national interest. This is similarly counterproductive.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … nuses.html
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," the president said on Monday. "Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
Well, because in the short run, hammering the AIG employees to give back their bonuses risks costing the government more than honoring the contracts would. The worst malefactors at AIG are gone. The new top management isn't taking bonuses. Those in the bonus pool are making sums that for most of us would be astronomical, but are significantly less than what they used to make. Driving away the very people who understand how to fix this complicated mess may make everyone else feel better, but it isn't particularly cost-effective.
In the longer term, having the government void existing contracts, directly or indirectly, as with the suggestions of a punitive tax on such bonuses, will make enterprises less likely to enter into arrangements with the government -- even when that is in the national interest. This is similarly counterproductive.
Love is the answer
Yes, but.
There may be legal requirements to pay the bonuses. I get that. But any company that has an agreement to pay bonuses regardless of how the recipients actually perform is fail. The government does the same thing all the time with civilians and contractors: bonuses for mediocrity or (in some cases) outright failure.
It's a facepalm of epic proportions.
If the bonus recipients were the "quality people" they supposedly are, then they would give back some or all of the bonuses received of their own accord...kind of like this guy.
There may be legal requirements to pay the bonuses. I get that. But any company that has an agreement to pay bonuses regardless of how the recipients actually perform is fail. The government does the same thing all the time with civilians and contractors: bonuses for mediocrity or (in some cases) outright failure.
It's a facepalm of epic proportions.
If the bonus recipients were the "quality people" they supposedly are, then they would give back some or all of the bonuses received of their own accord...kind of like this guy.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
TBH, while I think Rudd has become a shocking PM over the last few months, one of his ideas I like: Bonuses over a certain size have to be shareholder-approved.FEOS wrote:
Yes, but.
There may be legal requirements to pay the bonuses. I get that. But any company that has an agreement to pay bonuses regardless of how the recipients actually perform is fail. The government does the same thing all the time with civilians and contractors: bonuses for mediocrity or (in some cases) outright failure.
It's a facepalm of epic proportions.
If the bonus recipients were the "quality people" they supposedly are, then they would give back some or all of the bonuses received of their own accord...kind of like this guy.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
What difference could that possibly make. Is it not true that the shareholders are the ones who hire the CEO, or at least must approve his appointment? I would think the bonuses are in place as part of the contract,so you already have shareholder approval.Spark wrote:
TBH, while I think Rudd has become a shocking PM over the last few months, one of his ideas I like: Bonuses over a certain size have to be shareholder-approved.FEOS wrote:
Yes, but.
There may be legal requirements to pay the bonuses. I get that. But any company that has an agreement to pay bonuses regardless of how the recipients actually perform is fail. The government does the same thing all the time with civilians and contractors: bonuses for mediocrity or (in some cases) outright failure.
It's a facepalm of epic proportions.
If the bonus recipients were the "quality people" they supposedly are, then they would give back some or all of the bonuses received of their own accord...kind of like this guy.
Qft, would be nice to see it in legislation though, so far nobody has made a move...Spark wrote:
TBH, while I think Rudd has become a shocking PM over the last few months, one of his ideas I like: Bonuses over a certain size have to be shareholder-approved.
Maybe it's because both Labor and the Coalition get significant funding from the corporate sector...
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I think Rudd has been crap from day one, opposition is no better.
The bonus thing is just feeble grandstanding, such large blocks of shares are held by other corporations - eg pension funds - it won't make the slightest difference.
The bonus thing is just feeble grandstanding, such large blocks of shares are held by other corporations - eg pension funds - it won't make the slightest difference.
Fuck Israel
Ha. O got 100k from AIG... Priceless.
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Sid … s-from-AIG
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Sid … s-from-AIG
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
If Obama did in fact get campaign contributions from AIG then I am glad to see he is publicly criticising them despite this fact. Most other politicians would just try and cover up the issue or even defend AIG as a result of their patronage.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Ha. O got 100k from AIG... Priceless.
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Sid … s-from-AIG
It was a political contribution.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Ha. O got 100k from AIG... Priceless.
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Sid … s-from-AIG
He does not pocket the money himself.
AussieReaper wrote:
It was a political contribution.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Ha. O got 100k from AIG... Priceless.
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Sid … s-from-AIG
He does not pocket the money himself.
Whatever. He in essence took the company over.Braddock wrote:
If Obama did in fact get campaign contributions from AIG then I am glad to see he is publicly criticising them despite this fact. Most other politicians would just try and cover up the issue or even defend AIG as a result of their patronage.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
i say no because this should not cause your outrage comapred to the 20bil given to bail out some euro banks.
lol, right, hold onto the good ones. So if they do quit because they don't get their bonus, where exactly are they gonna go?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
interesting article on the bonuses...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … nuses.html
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," the president said on Monday. "Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
Well, because in the short run, hammering the AIG employees to give back their bonuses risks costing the government more than honoring the contracts would. The worst malefactors at AIG are gone. The new top management isn't taking bonuses. Those in the bonus pool are making sums that for most of us would be astronomical, but are significantly less than what they used to make. Driving away the very people who understand how to fix this complicated mess may make everyone else feel better, but it isn't particularly cost-effective.
In the longer term, having the government void existing contracts, directly or indirectly, as with the suggestions of a punitive tax on such bonuses, will make enterprises less likely to enter into arrangements with the government -- even when that is in the national interest. This is similarly counterproductive.
Many aren't even with AIG anymore. It was fufilling their contracts. I'm sure Obama has a cabinet position open for them.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
lol, right, hold onto the good ones. So if they do quit because they don't get their bonus, where exactly are they gonna go?[TUF]Catbox wrote:
interesting article on the bonuses...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … nuses.html
"This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed," the president said on Monday. "Under these circumstances, it's hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
Well, because in the short run, hammering the AIG employees to give back their bonuses risks costing the government more than honoring the contracts would. The worst malefactors at AIG are gone. The new top management isn't taking bonuses. Those in the bonus pool are making sums that for most of us would be astronomical, but are significantly less than what they used to make. Driving away the very people who understand how to fix this complicated mess may make everyone else feel better, but it isn't particularly cost-effective.
In the longer term, having the government void existing contracts, directly or indirectly, as with the suggestions of a punitive tax on such bonuses, will make enterprises less likely to enter into arrangements with the government -- even when that is in the national interest. This is similarly counterproductive.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
no takers eh?usmarine wrote:
i say no because this should not cause your outrage comapred to the 20bil given to bail out some euro banks.
well, just so you know. next time you euros watch your neat little footy matches, it should read barclay's premier league (sponsored by the US govt)
Obamas turned into bush
I mean.... sending more troops to afghanistan, voting on the patriot bill, and massive spending.
I mean.... sending more troops to afghanistan, voting on the patriot bill, and massive spending.
And if he doesn't do his job? Does he still deserve the multi-millions? That should be the shareholder agreement. Yes, it's contractually expected that the bonuses are given but it's ALSO expected that the CEO's don't leave the company down the shitter.lowing wrote:
What difference could that possibly make. Is it not true that the shareholders are the ones who hire the CEO, or at least must approve his appointment? I would think the bonuses are in place as part of the contract,so you already have shareholder approval.Spark wrote:
TBH, while I think Rudd has become a shocking PM over the last few months, one of his ideas I like: Bonuses over a certain size have to be shareholder-approved.FEOS wrote:
Yes, but.
There may be legal requirements to pay the bonuses. I get that. But any company that has an agreement to pay bonuses regardless of how the recipients actually perform is fail. The government does the same thing all the time with civilians and contractors: bonuses for mediocrity or (in some cases) outright failure.
It's a facepalm of epic proportions.
If the bonus recipients were the "quality people" they supposedly are, then they would give back some or all of the bonuses received of their own accord...kind of like this guy.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
If he profited from AIG personally and then actively colluded in their skullduggery then there would be a clear reason for anger or outrage but he's not, he's actively calling these guys out. Until news of him assisting AIG in their hunt for bonuses comes to light he has done nothing wrong in my opinion.DBBrinson1 wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
It was a political contribution.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Ha. O got 100k from AIG... Priceless.
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Sid … s-from-AIG
He does not pocket the money himself.Whatever. He in essence took the company over.Braddock wrote:
If Obama did in fact get campaign contributions from AIG then I am glad to see he is publicly criticising them despite this fact. Most other politicians would just try and cover up the issue or even defend AIG as a result of their patronage.