Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Treasury Department determined that the government did not have the legal authority to block the current payments by the company _ which are part of a larger total payout reportedly valued at $450 million. AIG declared earlier this month that it had suffered a loss of $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history

dbackjon wrote:What they can do is have at least some of the top execs to not get them.


Question - if the US Government hadn't bailed them out, and they went bankrupt, would they have still been legally obligated to pay the bonuses?

Col Hogan wrote:What we are seeing here is public outrage at work...just two days ago, the Treasury Department was wringing it's hands saying it could do nothing to stop the payment of the bonuses to AIG execs...

The Treasury Department determined that the government did not have the legal authority to block the current payments by the company _ which are part of a larger total payout reportedly valued at $450 million. AIG declared earlier this month that it had suffered a loss of $61.7 billion for the fourth quarter of last year, the largest corporate loss in history

http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=111&sid=1586327

But after some outrage on the Sunday talk shows, and on most message boards (us included) http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... =10&t=4417 the President is now taking firm steps to "order" Treasury to try and block the bonuses....

What are the lawyers going to try now that they didn't know about on Saturday when they said there was nothing they could do...

GRANDSTANDING...nothing more...

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:What they can do is have at least some of the top execs to not get them.


Question - if the US Government hadn't bailed them out, and they went bankrupt, would they have still been legally obligated to pay the bonuses?

That is an excellent question, jon...but...we did bail them out...

robert reich wrote:The real scandal of AIG isn't just that American taxpayers have so far committed $170 billion to the giant insurer because it is thought to be too big to fail -- the most money ever funneled to a single company by a government since the dawn of capitalism -- nor even that AIG's notoriously failing executives, at the very unit responsible for the catastrophic credit-default swaps at the very center of the debacle -- are planning to give themselves $100 million in bonuses. It's that even at this late date, even in a new administration dedicated to doing it all differently, Americans still have so little say over what is happening with our money.

The administration is said to have been outraged when it heard of the bonus plan last week. Apparently Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner told AIG's chairman, Edward Liddy (who was installed at the insistence of the Treasury, in the first place) that the bonuses should not be paid. But most will be paid anyway, because, according to AIG, the firm is legally obligated to do so. The bonuses are part of employee contracts negotiated before the bailouts. And, in any event, Liddy explained, AIG needed to be able to retain talent.

AIG's arguments are absurd on their face. Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid; indeed, AIG's executives would have long ago been on the street. And any mention of the word "talent" in the same sentence as "AIG" or "credit default swaps" would be laughable if it laughing weren't already so expensive.

Apart from AIG's sophistry is a much larger point. This sordid story of government helplessness in the face of massive taxpayer commitments illustrates better than anything to date why the government should take over any institution that's "too big to fail" and which has cost taxpayers dearly. Such institutions are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market. So to whom should they be accountable? When taxpayers have put up, and essentially own, a large portion of their assets, AIG and other behemoths should be accountable to taxpayers. When our very own Secretary of the Treasury cannot make stick his decision that AIG's bonuses should not be paid, only one conclusion can be drawn: AIG is accountable to no one. Our democracy is seriously broken.

dbackjon wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:

That is an excellent question, jon...but...we did bail them out...

Robert Reich seems to think so...

robert reich wrote:The real scandal of AIG isn't just that American taxpayers have so far committed $170 billion to the giant insurer because it is thought to be too big to fail -- the most money ever funneled to a single company by a government since the dawn of capitalism -- nor even that AIG's notoriously failing executives, at the very unit responsible for the catastrophic credit-default swaps at the very center of the debacle -- are planning to give themselves $100 million in bonuses. It's that even at this late date, even in a new administration dedicated to doing it all differently, Americans still have so little say over what is happening with our money.

The administration is said to have been outraged when it heard of the bonus plan last week. Apparently Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner told AIG's chairman, Edward Liddy (who was installed at the insistence of the Treasury, in the first place) that the bonuses should not be paid. But most will be paid anyway, because, according to AIG, the firm is legally obligated to do so. The bonuses are part of employee contracts negotiated before the bailouts. And, in any event, Liddy explained, AIG needed to be able to retain talent.

AIG's arguments are absurd on their face. Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid; indeed, AIG's executives would have long ago been on the street. And any mention of the word "talent" in the same sentence as "AIG" or "credit default swaps" would be laughable if it laughing weren't already so expensive.

Apart from AIG's sophistry is a much larger point. This sordid story of government helplessness in the face of massive taxpayer commitments illustrates better than anything to date why the government should take over any institution that's "too big to fail" and which has cost taxpayers dearly. Such institutions are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market. So to whom should they be accountable? When taxpayers have put up, and essentially own, a large portion of their assets, AIG and other behemoths should be accountable to taxpayers. When our very own Secretary of the Treasury cannot make stick his decision that AIG's bonuses should not be paid, only one conclusion can be drawn: AIG is accountable to no one. Our democracy is seriously broken.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-re ... 75105.html


Some great points by him, as well.

Appaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Robert Reich seems to think so...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-re ... 75105.html


Some great points by him, as well.

I'm telling you....what is the tipping point? At what outrage will some of the American public start lynching some of these fokkers? If the government forces the taxpayer to bail these companies out, then telss the taxpayer the laws are set up to protect the crooks.......well, you only have really one alternative left.....and it can be applied to the bank official or the government official.....

OL FU wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
I'm telling you....what is the tipping point? At what outrage will some of the American public start lynching some of these fokkers? If the government forces the taxpayer to bail these companies out, then telss the taxpayer the laws are set up to protect the crooks.......well, you only have really one alternative left.....and it can be applied to the bank official or the government official.....

I agree. The lawmakers (republican and democrat, except for DeMint )including Obama voted for Tarp funds without restrictions. The Treasury secretary was part of the Fed which was hugely involved in Bailing out AIG without restrictions.

I would suggest that the politicians offer us an apology and admit that they are inept at handling these affairs and then see what they can do about bonuses.

CSUBUCDAD wrote:This outcry over the 165 Mil in bonuses is just a cover for what the real outcry should be. 170 billion to AIG who sends over 60 billion to foreign banks and 40 billion to US banks some of whom were given a butt load of money on the first bailout plan. Subterfuge by the boys in DC that caused the freakin problem in the first place.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtian.

houndawg wrote:I mentioned in a different thread that if the bonuses have to paid they should make them show up in person to collect and then hand them their millions in gold bullion (how much would that weigh?) and let them get it to the bank themselves. LMLWAO at the thought of some slimy executive pushing a wheelbarrow full of gold through the streets of NYC. How far do you think he'd get?

bobbythekidd wrote:I guess I am the only one that thinks they should get the bonuses.

bobbythekidd wrote:I guess I am the only one that thinks they should get the bonuses.

CSUBUCDAD wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:I guess I am the only one that thinks they should get the bonuses.

IF AIG was contractually bound to pay them then the Fed should leave it alone. If they go in and invalidate the contracts that guaranteed them in the first place then what would prevent them from doing to any contract they wanted to invalidate.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CSUBUCDAD wrote: IF AIG was contractually bound to pay them then the Fed should leave it alone. If they go in and invalidate the contracts that guaranteed them in the first place then what would prevent them from doing to any contract they wanted to invalidate.

Much as I hate to agree with Mr. Red White and Blue, Captain America, I have to. Doing this sets a dangerous precedent.

houndawg wrote:Boolsheet. Nobody thought contracts were sacred when they pertained to the UAW.

bobbythekidd wrote:

houndawg wrote:Boolsheet. Nobody thought contracts were sacred when they pertained to the UAW.

Concessions were made by the UAW to help keep their jobs. I have no problem with the execs making concessions. In fact, I think they should offer to take less of the bonuses or waive them in total, but it should be their call not Congress.