PDA

View Full Version : Correct me if I am wrong



badbullgator
03-17-2009, 11:30 AM
From MSN

Reid wants an AIG refund
Sen. Reid says Congress is hoping to force AIG executives with millions in bonuses to give some of the money back to the U.S. Treasury.
Reid said Tuesday that the chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee will issue a proposal in the next day or so that would require AIG to return to government at least a portion of the bonuses that the insurance giant paid out last week.
It's unclear how that would be done, but committee chairman Max Baucus suggested imposing an excise tax on the AIG bonuses. "What is the highest excise tax we can impose that will stand up in court?" Baucus asked. "Let's find out what it is."
And Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, while praising Obama's effort to recover the money, suggested the Treasury Department could have done more two weeks ago, before it agreed to give AIG another $30-billion bailout.
In a short speech on the Senate floor, McConnell asked, "wouldn't the Treasury and the taxpayer have had more leverage over AIG's executive contracts before providing another $30 billion in taxpayer money-rather than allowing the bonuses to be paid with taxpayer money?"

Sooooo. we are giving them another 30 BILLION and we want back the 165 Million....don't ya think that should be pretty easy for them....I mean wouldn't they just be paying us back with our own money?????
This money is GONE!!!!! Why give them more when they have done this (and in fairness it is a small % of the total) AND used the money to bailout overseas banks and to give more to those US banks that already got BIG bailouts.
Floks we are screwed and you aint even going to get a kiss
This could be posted under the tell them what they want to hear thread because both BHO and the congress/senate folks are talking tought about something they can't do anything about at this point, but it sure makes them sound like they are looking out for you huh

TN_LAB
03-17-2009, 12:02 PM
What do you think about the compensation contracts that were in place?

I feel the government folks should have made all of this a requirement before they started shelling out money. You've got to be very careful when it comes to making requirements after the fact.

I also heard something similar. What do you think about welfare recepients buying cell phones and flat screen TVs?

Patrick Johndrow
03-17-2009, 12:13 PM
This is yet another reason NO company should have ever been bailed out and a classic example of “throwing good money after bad”

AIG, just like a lot of other companies, has earned the right to FAIL.

Ken Newcomb
03-17-2009, 12:49 PM
I just don't believe that washington is that stupid. This is just a smoke screen to keep us busy complaining about it.

If I'm not wrong the US gov bought stock in AIG and the only way they an get anything back is to sell the stock.

Franco
03-17-2009, 12:53 PM
I would suggest to our Congressmen and President that they read bills before they sign them!

Keystone Cops - Democrats in action again.

The U S A has no business getting involved with the private sector other than enforcing laws. How can we trust these bumbling idiots to tell a business what to do when they aren't qualified? So what now, businesses have to look over thier shoulders because of gooberment interference?

We need LESS government, not more!

badbullgator
03-17-2009, 01:14 PM
I agree, but even more to the point is that BIG government is not capable of making snap decisions and the bailout was pushed as something that was needed YESTERDAY! Nothing this big, or anything other than something to do with national security should EVER be rushed through congress or signed by the POTUS. I am not convinced that the bailout did ANYTHING to help and I truly donít believe that it did anything that could not have been done better by waiting a month or so and working it out in a better way (if indeed there is a better way)

Matt McKenzie
03-17-2009, 01:16 PM
The really intelligent thing about this whole mess is that we've spent all this money trying to keep these big institutions from going under because they were supposedly mismanaged. Now we're going to completely eliminate any way for these companies to employ top-notch management by screwing with the incentives.
Why would any high-quality top-level manager take a position in a company that has recieved TARP dollars knowing he will be demonized and forced to take some ridiculously low wage with no bonuses when he can go to another company and be compensated at the market rate? So how are these companies going to get themselves back on track? I suppose the brains that put the bailout package together can give them guidance. That should work out really well.

road kill
03-17-2009, 01:25 PM
"Not 1 thin dime" will be reclaimed!!:cool:

Goose
03-17-2009, 01:35 PM
The two biggest recipients of AIG campaign contributions in the Senate last year...Dodd and Obama. Then McCain and Hillary. Maybe they should give the contributions back.

And maybe Sen. Grassley should lead by example and convince some of his friends on the other side of the aisle to do the same. I'll provide the sword. We'd all be much better off.

badbullgator
03-17-2009, 01:38 PM
The really intelligent thing about this whole mess is that we've spent all this money trying to keep these big institutions from going under because they were supposedly mismanaged. Now we're going to completely eliminate any way for these companies to employ top-notch management by screwing with the incentives.
Why would any high-quality top-level manager take a position in a company that has recieved TARP dollars knowing he will be demonized and forced to take some ridiculously low wage with no bonuses when he can go to another company and be compensated at the market rate? So how are these companies going to get themselves back on track? I suppose the brains that put the bailout package together can give them guidance. That should work out really well.


Matt
While I agree to some point I also have to ask just how good these top notch people are if their company lost more money in one quarter (and that is just one quarter), 68 Billion, than any company in the history of the galaxy. I am sure some of the people who got bonuses did do a good job and maybe were involved in other areas of the company and not the part that lost BILLIONS. Still, however, any company that looses money like that should not be giving any bonuses. They, like many other Americans, myself included, should be happy to keep their jobs. I know that our company did not give anyone a raise this year, not even a 2% cost of living increase. We didnít lose any money but we made very little and will probably make less next year. There comes a time when you have to tighten your belt and take one for the team unless you can go solo and the majority of Americans cannot go it alone without a job. That said, they are taking MY money and giving it to people who any way you look at it did a piss poor job. I just donít see where you can justify any one getting a bonus at a company that has lost MANY BILLIONS of dollars. They would not have the money to give them if we, the taxpayers, had not bailed them out. In fact they would not have jobs PERIOD! The only check they would be getting is an unemployment check
Incetives are for people/companies that MAKE MONEY not lose it

Matt McKenzie
03-17-2009, 01:48 PM
I don't know who does what at AIG or how thier employment contracts read. However, if you had a contract with your employer that entitled you to a $1000.00 Christmas bonus, you are entitled to that bonus as long as you did your job (per the contract) and December 25th arrived as scheduled. If your boss did something that caused the value of the company to decline, that has nothing to do with the legal contract you entered into with your employer. If the Imperial Federal Government decides that your contract should be broken because of actions taken by said government, I say that's BS. Then they can force you to take a pay cut because the IFG decided to "bail out" your company.
I can guarantee that after you quit, it's going to be pretty difficult to find someone with your education and experience to take your place at the microscope. They will avoid that job like the plague when they can take their talents elsewhere and be properly compensated. How will that help the company? It won't. But it will provide political capital to any grandstanding politician who dumbs it down and pledges to take it to those "Wall Street fat-cats". Class warfare at its finest and a great way to gain votes.
One man's opinion.

Franco
03-17-2009, 01:51 PM
Matt
While I agree to some point I also have to ask just how good these top notch people are if their company lost more money in one quarter (and that is just one quarter), 68 Billion, than any company in the history of the galaxy. I am sure some of the people who got bonuses did do a good job and maybe were involved in other areas of the company and not the part that lost BILLIONS. Still, however, any company that looses money like that should not be giving any bonuses. They, like many other Americans, myself included, should be happy to keep their jobs. I know that our company did not give anyone a raise this year, not even a 2% cost of living increase. We didnít lose any money but we made very little and will probably make less next year. There comes a time when you have to tighten your belt and take one for the team unless you can go solo and the majority of Americans cannot go it alone without a job. That said, they are taking MY money and giving it to people who any way you look at it did a piss poor job. I just donít see where you can justify any one getting a bonus at a company that has lost MANY BILLIONS of dollars. They would not have the money to give them if we, the taxpayers, had not bailed them out. In fact they would not have jobs PERIOD! The only check they would be getting is an unemployment check
Incetives are for people/companies that MAKE MONEY not lose it

What about ther people that actually made money for the company. Wouldn't you want then to stay?

This is a subject that should not be debated in what use to be a free enterprise country. The first mistake was the govenment getting involved in bailouts! That is the problem and not how much money someone makes in bonuses. But, it is something we are going to have to live with until we oust the current socialist from Washington DC.

Hoosier
03-17-2009, 01:54 PM
What were the bonuses based on? If it was based on profit or growth I don't think they would have been paid out. They must have been based on individual performance that generated income and that needs to be encouraged. That said if I worked for a company that was basically bankrupt and the government had just saved my job I would understand not getting a bonus this year.

badbullgator
03-17-2009, 02:02 PM
What about ther people that actually made money for the company. Wouldn't you want then to stay?

This is a subject that should not be debated in what use to be a free enterprise country. The first mistake was the govenment getting involved in bailouts! That is the problem and not how much money someone makes in bonuses. But, it is something we are going to have to live with until we oust the current socialist from Washington DC.


Franco
Yes I would, but I still feel it is bad business to give money, especially borrowed from the taxpayers money, to anyone in a company that did so badly it had to be bailed out by the government. Like I said I made money for my company this year and yet no raises for anyone because we plan to stay in business and we donít expect any government bailout anytime soon. IF they had not been bailed out there would be no AIG and certainly no bonuses, donít you agree. I donít think we should have bailed them out in the first place. I understand that it is a contractual thing and they really had no choice other than to pay them but the only reason they were able to is because they got their hands in our pockets.
Youíre a radio guy so let me ask you this. If a station does so badly that it has ratings that are at the bottom and the station cannot afford to keep its doors open. It cannot sell an ad to save its life and it has thirteen listeners. Does the program director get a bonus because he selected good music?

Franco
03-17-2009, 02:12 PM
You’re a radio guy so let me ask you this. If a station does so badly that it has ratings that are at the bottom and the station cannot afford to keep its doors open. It cannot sell an ad to save its life and it has thirteen listeners. Does the program director get a bonus because he selected good music?



Been there, done that and learned from it.;-)

All PD bonuses are currently based on ratings. No increase in ratings, no bonus.
Ratings = revenue along with a strong and smart local sales effort.

There are a handful of radio and TV companies that won't see thier credit extended to them in 09. Companies that paid stupid prices for stations so they could own more and make more profits. Once they default on their loans, their lender will have to decide to;
1) Extend thier loans in hopes of getting their money in the future.
2) Liquidated the companies. With this being a buyers market for broadcast properties, the financial institutions will take their beating as they will sell for about 60% of thier 1999 value. It is the reason that the biggest in the business, Clear Channel, went private in 08. There is no such thing as investor value with CC anymore so, the went private. They also didn't care for the new Sarbaines-Oxley Act which causes an undue burden on accounting.

Liquidation opens up opportunities for folks to buy these distressed properties and turn them around. Extending the financing of the poorly run companies only prolongs the inevitable.

We are in a unique situation because our sales/revenue is ahead of 2008, which was ahead of 2007 and 2006 was a great year. The problems are not with the economy, though the bad operators would use the economy as an excuse. The problem is with the companies owning too many radio stations. Radio doesn't do well revenue wise as part of a large conglomorate because it isn't a business for bean-counters.

badbullgator
03-17-2009, 05:32 PM
Franco
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of them getting bonuses just because I think it is bad business. What I dislike even more, however, is the goberment trying to take it away or tax if from the people who got it. That is scary when they change the rules. The goberment needs to leave it alone, as stupid as it was, and assure it does not happen again. I don;t have a probelm with them making conditions on the money they are lending, but it cannot be after the fact

WaterDogRem
03-17-2009, 05:42 PM
First, there should have been no bailouts.

Second, the elected democratic congress, who wrote and passed the Bill, knew of AIG's contract obligations which included the Bonuses before passing. Obama signed the Bill and also should have known about all the contract obligations. If they didn't agree with the Bonuses, then they should have put that in the Bill.

We should not be mad with AIG, we should be outraged with our elected government. The public is being blinded by the media and politics.

If two parties go into a contract, I'd expect both parties to fulfill their obligations as the contract states.

Matt McKenzie
03-17-2009, 07:01 PM
Also, keep in mind that the reason that so many executives recieve a large portion of thier compensation in "bonuses" is because there are always idiots in Congress who think that the government should limit executive salaries. So in order to avoid that stuff, they pay in bonuses. Well, now we have idiots in Congress who are writing legislation to tax the AIG bonuses at a 95% rate.

One of you Democrats please come on here and justify this type of out-of-control madness. This country is very quickly going down the drain.

Goose
03-17-2009, 07:10 PM
That's the great thing about being a democrat. Any law you wrote last month that you don't like you can just write another one over it. They like to have it both ways.

Somebody add up all the money the democrats took in as campaign contributions last year from AIG...Dear Leader included. Maybe we should tax those campaign contributions at the 95% rate.

JDogger
03-17-2009, 10:35 PM
Day'um, I wished that Ctl+Alt+Del button worked everywhere, not just on my 'puter.

In a more perfect world regards,

JD

YardleyLabs
03-18-2009, 05:58 AM
That's the great thing about being a democrat. Any law you wrote last month that you don't like you can just write another one over it. They like to have it both ways.

Somebody add up all the money the democrats took in as campaign contributions last year from AIG...Dear Leader included. Maybe we should tax those campaign contributions at the 95% rate.

The answer is that over the last 18 years AIG has made substantial contributions that were split 50/50 between both parties. Large corporations seldom leave anything to chance. In any particular year you can assume that the party leading in the election will receive the majority of corporate donations but that the losing party will still receive a lot.

road kill
03-18-2009, 07:20 AM
The answer is that over the last 18 years AIG has made substantial contributions that were split 50/50 between both parties. Large corporations seldom leave anything to chance. In any particular year you can assume that the party leading in the election will receive the majority of corporate donations but that the losing party will still receive a lot.

It's actually 66% / 33% Democrats, but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good post!! :shock:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/before-the-fall-aig-payouts-we.html

YardleyLabs
03-18-2009, 08:36 AM
It's actually 66% / 33% Democrats, but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good post!! :shock:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/03/before-the-fall-aig-payouts-we.html

There server is down or I would give you the reference. Howver, the 66/34 split was last year. The 18 year total which they also cite is 50/50.

Matt McKenzie
03-18-2009, 09:45 AM
It's already started. Eleven AIG executives have resigned so far. Who's going to take those jobs with the current limits to compensation delineated by TARP and the ridiculous media frenzy over bonuses? Nobody with a brain. That will certainly help AIG get back on track.

Keep on focusing on Corporate bonuses and private jets. That way you don't have time to be outraged by the gross disregard for the law by our elected officials.

Franco
03-18-2009, 10:02 AM
AIG is done, you can stick a fork in them. No way they will survive the liberal media frenzy over the bonuses.

How many tax payer billions have been wasted by our government attempting to bail them out? Our gooberment is destroying them in the media for AIG executing a plan approved by the Obomo administration!

This country will not survive four years of Obomo and his idiots.

badbullgator
03-18-2009, 10:19 AM
It will be interesting to hear how AIG defends themselves today. I listened to a program yesterday on ,gulp, NPR (my lefty comradeís choice, not mine) and they were talking to someone from AIG (current or former, I donít remember) and wow did he stumble when asked why these folks should get such big bonuses when they, as a company, did such a poor job. His first answer was that companies like AIG needed the ďtalentĒ that these people possessed. The host ,and this kind of surprised me, pushed and asked how much ďtalentĒ that really was in light of the fact that they had lost 68 billion dollars in the last quarter. The guy went on to change his tune and state that it was not so much talent as the fact that these are jobs that you and I canít fill because we donít understand or ďspeak the languageĒ of derivatives and such. The host pressed even further in asking if he thought that these people actually understood it being that they lost so much money and had to have a bailout to survive. He really could not provide a good response to that and that was the end of the interview.
My point is that I agree the government should not be chasing the people who got the bonuses and trying to make rules to tax them for the money. That is bad any way you slice it. I do not feel, however, that in this case these folks that are leaving are irreplaceable or worth retaining. AIG has done enough to hurt itself and I cannot place all of the blame on the goberment. AIG could have done the right thing and restructured their contracts. I donít care who you are or how much you make, there comes a time when you do the right thing and hope for payback down the line in better times. Public image is worth as much as any of these guys leaving AIG. By not doing what is perceived to be right AIG may have dealt itself a knockout punch. People and businesses that can will leave AIG like urine flowing from a sleeping drunk in an alley. The black eye that AIG has given itself is going to hurt far worse than what the government is doing to them. Public image is everything
I donít care if executives fly in corporate jest or get huge bonuses IF, and this is a BIG IF, the company is making their OWN money, is not owned by the taxpayer, is not STILL LOOSING MONEY, and is not asking for BILLIONS of dollars more from us. When the government has to save your ass to keep your doors open all bets are off as far as this stuff goes. The only reason the government has/may have a say in this is because it is OUR money and that is where the difference lies. If McDonalds want to give bonuses and fly around in corporate jet, more power to them and the government should have no say in it. If GM, AIG et al want our money then they must spend it wisely. That said no stipulations were put on the money AIG paid out. That was stupid and done with little to no forethought. So we agree that the government should not be trying to get it back, we apparently disagree that these folks deserve bonuses or to even keep their jobs. Sorry but I saw a report yesterday that said 70+ people got a million dollars or more in bonus. I just donít personally see why any company who is still dying and lost as much money as they have can justify giving anyone working for them a million dollars in bonus. Who is responsible for their losses? It has to be the people in charge and one would have to ponder a guess that the ones getting a million + in bonuses are the people in charge. Kind of like giving the coach ot the Lions a million dollar bonus for an 0-16 season donít ya think?

EDIT: Bho just said

"Just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of, that has existed for far too long: excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking," he said.

Now that is something I do not agree with. If the money is there, the money a company has made, not gotten form the goberment, they can and should be able to di what they want with it. The big thing here is that he wants total control of banks and such to further his agenda and that is the death of America