The coming financial crisis

ATV · March 16, 2009, 09:18:25 PM

Quote"Trickle up economics doesn't work. We know that."

I'm not sure if it does, but who says it doesn't?

Diomedes · March 17, 2009, 08:56:13 AM

I think the AIG bonuses should be paid. A contract is a contract.

Butchers Bill · March 17, 2009, 09:06:26 AM

Quote from: Diomedes on March 17, 2009, 08:56:13 AM
I think the AIG bonuses should be paid. A contract is a contract.

Only if the people receiving the bonus had nothing to do with the current crisis. If an individual is due a bonus in the contract, but caused significant damage to the firm through negligence, the individual should be terminated for cause. Of course, the contract should be reviewed to see which is cheaper...firing them or paying the bonus.

I heard an argument today that Police, Fire, and Public employees all over the country are having their contracts essentially voided to take pay cuts and/or furlough days, so why should AIG not alter their contracts? I agree that it's a slippery slope. In addition the lawsuits stemming from such an action may cost the government more money than the bonuses themselves. After all, contracts are the basis of many of our laws so if you start saying they are only applicable in good times then what good are they?

Seabiscuit36 · March 17, 2009, 10:19:52 AM

the little guys should get their bonus, the douches who made the shots to defraud the company should be broke.

ice grillin you · March 17, 2009, 10:35:31 AM

why should ANYONE get a bonus when a company essentially went bankrupt...its not like these people arent being paid a salary...we are talking about bonuses...farg them

PoopyfaceMcGee · March 17, 2009, 10:45:52 AM

It sets a dangerous precedent to void a legal agreement, though. Those guys should burn in hell, but they'll take their millions with them.

Diomedes · March 17, 2009, 10:53:24 AM

Quote from: Butchers Bill on March 17, 2009, 09:06:26 AMI heard an argument today that Police, Fire, and Public employees all over the country are having their contracts essentially voided to take pay cuts and/or furlough days, so why should AIG not alter their contracts?

I too have heard that argument and it sounds to me like justifying a bad move by saying see, we're doing the same bad move elsewhere.

Quote from: FastFreddie on March 17, 2009, 10:45:52 AMIt sets a dangerous precedent to void a legal agreement, though.

This is what bothers me.

I don't think these people should get their bonuses for any reason other than the rule of law, but that's a big reason. If the contracts call for the bonuses to be paid regardless of company performance, then I don't see how they can be prevented from being paid without doing some serious damage to the concept of the contact, upon which our entire legal system is founded.

PoopyfaceMcGee · March 17, 2009, 10:54:59 AM

Plus, what's a few hundred million when the total bailout money is in the hundreds of billions? This is akin to Obama signing off on a budget with some "pork" earmarks on it. The public outrage and unrest is only being diverted from the true (and harder to understand) underlying issues.

reese125 · March 17, 2009, 11:14:27 AM

Quote
This is what bothers me.

I don't think these people should get their bonuses for any reason other than the rule of law, but that's a big reason. If the contracts call for the bonuses to be paid regardless of company performance, then I don't see how they can be prevented from being paid without doing some serious damage to the concept of the contact, upon which our entire legal system is founded.

how can any agency, especially the size of AIG have that kind of loophole in the contract without covering their ass--especially knowing that any business could fail at any time as soon as you open the doors?

if they do then high fives for the guys seeking the bonus

ice grillin you · March 17, 2009, 11:27:52 AM

without govt bailout money the company would have went under and many of these people wouldnt have had a job much less gotten these bonuses...bankruptcy combined with a govt bailout more than supercedes some stupid legal agreement for these clowns to get bonus money in this scenario

PoopyfaceMcGee · March 17, 2009, 11:37:29 AM

It should, but the legal precedent it sets is still very dangerous.

ice grillin you · March 17, 2009, 11:41:14 AM

its not like we are talking about the constitution here...the precedent sent here would be that if your company goes bankrupt and needs a govt bailout youre not paying out bonuses...nothing dangerous about that at all much less very dangerous...in fact its the opposite of dangerous and would be an excellent precedent to set

PoopyfaceMcGee · March 17, 2009, 11:51:10 AM

Counter-point

ATV · March 17, 2009, 01:41:56 PM

Quotewhy should ANYONE get a bonus when a company essentially went bankrupt...its not like these people arent being paid a salary...we are talking about bonuses...farg them

I agree. farg em. We own their shtein.

reese125 · March 17, 2009, 02:19:42 PM

AIG execs got bonuses and left, official says
AIG paid 73 employees bonuses of more than $1 million, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo told Congress in a letter today. Cuomo wrote that 11 of the employees no longer work for the company. The largest bonus paid was $6.4 million, and seven more people received more than $4 million each. AIG has been under fire for awarding huge bonuses after getting a $170 billion government bailout.

appreciate it......pfffffffffttttttttttttttttt!

you gotta love the fact that these bonuses were signed and distributed to keep the proper talent on board and now they are gone

what a horrendous joke that is