AIG $85 Billion Bailout

[Rick Thorne]

So now the Politicians are pi$$ing and moaning AIG paid big buck bonuses. Bet you won't hear them say. "Maybe we should have read it and not been in such a rush to cram it down the taxpayers throat!" They expect AIG to be honest and do the right thing when they themselves have no idea of what honesty is! Just another example of our corrupt politicians at work.

[PocketProtector]

Ahhhh Let's put the Government in charge of everything, they do such a wonderful job.......and cheap.LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[adymond]

IMO AIG is doing the right thing now by honoring contracts that were entered into in good faith. Congress wants them to reneg on the contracts. That's fucked up.

[Rick Thorne]

IMO AIG is doing the right thing now by honoring contracts that were entered into in good faith. Congress wants them to reneg on the contracts. That's fucked up.

NO!! We are the new owners of AIG if it weren't for us there would be no AIG ! Where would they get the money for bonuses then, pull it out of there ass???

[LorDiego01]

IMO AIG is doing the right thing now by honoring contracts that were entered into in good faith. Congress wants them to reneg on the contracts. That's fucked up.

I have heard this sentiment and frankly do not understand it.

If I make a business contract, and I promise my employees $1 million dollar year end bonus, but then, I run my business into the ground, why should the .gov have to pay for my promises??

Now granted, I'm 100% freemarket capitalist, I just don't see how the government has to honor the promises made by a business that failed.

[adymond]

NO!! We are the new owners of AIG if it weren't for us there would be no AIG ! Where would they get the money for bonuses then, pull it out of there ass???

No what? So you think the government should as the new owner not honor the contracts? If the government had not given them the money they would have gone into bankruptcy and at that point the contracts would have been rendered null and void. Since the government gave them the money they are now still liquid and MUST honor the contracts.

It was posted in another thread CT law states that if a compensation contract is not honored and the employeer is sued and looses (as AIG would) the employer pays double the compensation plus lawyer fees. Does that sound like a reasonable alternative?

[Dredly]

I have to admit... Liddy is an amazing man.

If I were in that hot seat and these dipshits were saying this to me for 1.00 a year I would stand up, throw the papers at them and tell them to go fuck themselves.

[FNG19]

NO!! We are the new owners of AIG if it weren't for us there would be no AIG ! Where would they get the money for bonuses then, pull it out of there ass???

I don't want to own a business that can't be relied on to honor its agreements, or to engage in the ordinary agreements that business of its type and scale make all the time.

Frankly, this whole issue pisses me off. We're talking about less than 1 percent of the money we gave them. Congress has wasted more money than this on earmarks and pork this year, let alone the increased spending proposed by Obama in his budget request. For Congress to sit in judgment of anyone on issues of waste, corruption and greed is like having the Catholic Church sit in judgment of Joseph Fritzl. I apologize for the offensive nature of the comparison, but this farcical witch hunt is truly, deeply offensive to me. Anyone who's paying attention knows that this is another round of "deflect and blame" with the intent to deflect the wrath of the American People about the bailouts off of the enablers (Congress and the Administration) and to the beneficiaries (AIG). This is shameful, and is not the Business of the People. It's more political theatrics and point-scoring, not the kind of "hope and change" people put these clowns in place to achieve.

Plus ca change...

[Dredly]

I have heard this sentiment and frankly do not understand it.

If I make a business contract, and I promise my employees $1 million dollar year end bonus, but then, I run my business into the ground, why should the .gov have to pay for my promises??

Now granted, I'm 100% freemarket capitalist, I just don't see how the government has to honor the promises made by a business that failed.

Lor, these are not REGULAR PERFORMANCE BASED BONUSES

I think that is what everyone is missing.

these contracts and bonuses were drafted up when AIG saw the writing on the wall and new their people may start jumping off the sinking ship. The solution (which is STANDARD across all industries) is "If you finish this project, you will receive money for completing it, regardless of if the company is in the red or black".

"Retention bonuses" means "retaining the employee until the job is done", if they finished the work in December because of working 80 hour weeks for the last 6 months then why would they stay there.

[adymond]

I have heard this sentiment and frankly do not understand it.

If I make a business contract, and I promise my employees $1 million dollar year end bonus, but then, I run my business into the ground, why should the .gov have to pay for my promises??

Now granted, I'm 100% freemarket capitalist, I just don't see how the government has to honor the promises made by a business that failed.

It is not the government that is directly responsible for honoring the contracts. Through the bailout it is, but the bottom line is we pumped capital into the company to keep it liquid. So long as the company is liquid they must honor the contracts.

If you promise employees bonuses for completing a task and then run out of money you would file for bankruptcy and close the business ending any contractual relationships. That did not happen here. If your business is bought the new owner would still be responsible for those contracts.

[ETA] I'm glad that you are trying to understand what some of us are saying. It seems that some people are just letting emotion control the debate. I am guilty of that as well as I can get frusterated when others don't see things that seem logical to me. When this first came up I got pretty pissed and it took a while for me to not just see this from an emotional view point.