Obama tries to block AIG bonuses

[waitforufo]

The article says list of names, not list of addresses. Do you have an argument that isn't based on half-lies with some added spin?

 

So after reading the article below, you are still comfortable publishing the names of people receiving bonuses?

 

- Get the bonus, we will get your children "Jacob the Killer"

 

-- All you motherf***ers should be shot. Thanks for f***ing up our economy then taking our money.

 

-- Dear Sir: Ya'll should have the balls and come clean and give back the bonuses. I know you would never do this so the gov't ought to take you out back and shoot everyone of you crooked sonofb****es...I would be very careful when I went out side. This is just a warning. If I were ya'll I would be real afraid. Thanks, Bill.

 

-- I don't hope that bad things happen to the recipients of those bonuses. I really hope that bad things happen to the children and grandchildren of them! Whatever hurts them the most!!

 

-- You f***ing suck. Paying bonuses to the d*****s that made bad bets losing your company billions of dollars. I want to f***ing puke. Publish the list of those yankee scumbags so some good old southern boys can take care of them.

 

-- If the bonuses don't stop, it will be very likely that every CEO @ AIG has a bulls-eye on their backs.

 

-- We will hunt you down. Every last penny. We will hunt your children and we will hunt your conscience. We will do whatever we can to get those people getting the bonuses. Give back the money or kill yourselves.

 

-- All the executives and their families should be executed with piano wire around their necks --- my greatest hope.

 

-- You mother-f***ing, c***s***ing, d***l****ers need to be taken out one by one and shot in the head. There's a special place in hell for you pond scum. Watch your backs because someone will come to get you, you can be sure.

 

-- The Revolution is coming. The family members of your executives are not safe. Your blood will run through the streets in the coming months.

 

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/AIG-Threats-We-will-get-your-children.html

 

Then there is this…

However, using the threat of publishing their names to gain leverage in negotiations is fine by me.

 

For people so concerned about highly placed government officials committing crimes, iNow and bascule, perhaps you should look up the definition of the word "extortion." You really have no problem with an Attorney General committing the crime of extortion?

 

To the extent that we meet certain participation targets, it is not expected that the names would be released, at all.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29862770

 

That is a textbook extortive statement.

 

Finally this one…

I think it's right to stop executive compensation bonuses for companies receiving bailout funds. I didn't ask that guy to take a $1 salary, and I never understood why they did that anyway. It's always been understood that the real money came from the bonus. Am I supposed to cry my eyes out because he skipped a $250,000 salary when I didn't ask him to, and didn't take a multi-million dollar salary that the company DID NOT EARN, at TAXPAYER EXPENSE? I don't think so.

 

If you want to be compensated for your time, don't agree to work for free and take a bonus if one happens to be available at the end of the year. Guess what? It isn't available, because your company BLEW IT. You gambled, you lost. Next time, don't make a foolish wager that nobody asked you to take for public relations reasons that nobody cared about.

 

(I wonder what the unemployment compensation level is for a $1/year salary. 5 cents?)

 

You persist in this belief that all bonuses should be tied to profits. Perhaps this belief correlates with your personal experience and the experience of your friends and associates. This belief however is incorrect. Companies without profits often pay bonuses to employees, contractors, and suppliers. It is a normal part of business. Refusing to accept this fact does not make your opinions correct.

[SH3RL0CK]

I, for one, am glad that some of the executives are resigning (though I would prefer them to be fired). To me, the problem isn't about the bonuses but rather the incompentence and greed of these people. I also do have a problem with the high salaries/bonuses as I cannot imagine just how these people are worth this much money since a baboon could do just as well. How could I get a job like this? I could have done much better by simply doing almost nothing. But then, I've never been able to waste more than $10-20 at any given time...these guys can spend Billions with nothing to show for it.

 

I still say the gov't, which now owns 80% of AIG, should clean house and hire totally new people to do this job (and at a more reasonable salary..maybe cap it at $200k for executives and $100k for middle managers).

 

As a sidenote, I still cannot understand why an employment contract would provide a guaranteed bonus regardless of overall company performance (such has never been offered at any place I have worked...so I question watiforufos statement that it is a normal part of business). Isn't a guaranteed payout regardless of company performance as long as you are employed there called a salary?

[ParanoiA]

Great post waitforufo.

 

I guess I shouldn't get my attendance bonus since my department didn't make a profit. Oh wait...my department is an expense by it's very nature, we don't EVER make any money for the company.

 

Those threats are insane, albeit childish. They're more brave on the internet than in person. These same people, would be bent out shape if they were treated the same way; termed guilty without the respect of even reasonable substantiation.

 

At this point, I'd be impressed if any of these idiots could even produce half-assed concern for any sense of substantiated guilt.

[Pangloss]

You persist in this belief that all bonuses should be tied to profits. Perhaps this belief correlates with your personal experience and the experience of your friends and associates. This belief however is incorrect. Companies without profits often pay bonuses to employees, contractors, and suppliers. It is a normal part of business. Refusing to accept this fact does not make your opinions correct.

 

I do, in fact, understand that some companies pay bonuses when they are not profitable. My opinion is that such bonuses should not be paid when the company in question is on the public teat.

 

You are, of course, absolutely welcome to think otherwise.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I guess I shouldn't get my attendance bonus since my department didn't make a profit. Oh wait...my department is an expense by it's very nature, we don't EVER make any money for the company.

 

If your company is receiving bailout funds, then in my opinion you should not get that bonus. Your last point is irrelevant, IMO -- I didn't address either bonus calculation methods or departmental impact. But I'd have no problem with a company on the public dole giving bonuses to infrastructural departments if they become profitable as a result of our intervention. That's what I *want* to see happen.

 

 

Those threats are insane, albeit childish. They're more brave on the internet than in person. These same people, would be bent out shape if they were treated the same way; termed guilty without the respect of even reasonable substantiation.

 

I completely agree with this, btw.

[ParanoiA]

If your company is receiving bailout funds, then in my opinion you should not get that bonus.

 

How about their salary then? Should they not get that either?

 

See, this is the point I think waitforufo is trying to make. We're only kicking on bonuses because of the word bonus. Because we always associate "bonus" with some kind of profit measurement, is our fault - it does not redefine the concept itself.

 

Bonus is merely a type of compensation that is tied to a particular task, or dynamic of function as opposed to general compensation that only requires one to show up, otherwise known as salary. There is nothing that inherently associates the concept to profitability.

 

So, then what you're really saying is that when you bail out a company, you believe those folks should not be entitled to any kind of compensation that is tied directly to a task or function - money for their labor - but only general / hourly compensation.

 

And that's just a strange line to draw. Why deny someone compensation for their labor merely because it isn't gauranteed hourly wage? I would qualify that a bit, and require the bonus to be based on some kind of profit measurement before I'd stand against it. After all, that's the whole point about being pissed off about all of this right? No one was up in arms because we had to pay people's wages.

 

 

 

Hell, most waitress jobs, like Hooters, as far as I know, don't even pay minimum wage and count on tips to get a decent income. If they happened to call tips "bonuses", then you'd deny those angels their tips if we had to bail out Hooters? What kind of man does that?

[Saryctos]

I feel the problem here is that the way the AIG situation is being peddled is that the gov't owns the company(in fact Brian Williams says it almost nightly). But the truth is, we the people DO NOT own AIG. Anyone clamoring over their payments is at no less fault than an employee of company X complaining that CEO of company Y is running his business poorly because he pays his workers a different wage.

It's true that large payments are being made to AIG, and that these are for AIG expenses, not gov't spending. We accepted this fact(or at least should have) when the money was paid to AIG.

[Pangloss]

How about their salary then? Should they not get that either?

 

Nope, just the bonus. They should receive their salary.

 

 

See, this is the point I think waitforufo is trying to make. We're only kicking on bonuses because of the word bonus. Because we always associate "bonus" with some kind of profit measurement, is our fault - it does not redefine the concept itself.

 

I understand the point, and if you want to suggest that the two concepts be separated I'm fine with that, I don't really have a problem with something like "merit pay" during bailouts. But they should be minor, determined before the bailout, and written in stone.

 

The point is not penalizing company employees for their company's failure. The point is controlling costs while operating at taxpayer expense.

 

 

Bonus is merely a type of compensation that is tied to a particular task, or dynamic of function as opposed to general compensation that only requires one to show up, otherwise known as salary. There is nothing that inherently associates the concept to profitability.

 

Well I disagree, I think it's well established that bonuses at financial institutions, especially with regard to executive compensation, are connected to company performance. Why do you think they so often agree to take $1 salaries? They're trying to impress shareholders with their confidence that the company's performance will improve, and they know that if they succeed they will receive... (drum roll please) a bigger bonus.

 

And let's face it, we're not talking about the little guy working in the IT department -- that's not what people are upset about. They're upset about top executives misleading the public and then disingenuously receiving their hard-earned money.

[iNow]

The point is not penalizing company employees for their company's failure. The point is controlling costs while operating at taxpayer expense.

QFT. Nice post, my man.

[Saryctos]

So I should be outraged if people receiving welfare aren't spending that money on getting themselves out of the poorhouse? Or anyone on medicare not living a healthy lifestyle?

[Pangloss]

So I should be outraged if people receiving welfare aren't spending that money on getting themselves out of the poorhouse?

 

Absolutely. Go sign up for welfare and watch what happens. First they'll tell you that we don't have permanent welfare programs in this country anymore, we have temporary assistance programs only, all of which are absolutely predicated on the notion of getting yourself back to work. Then they'll tell you about all the restrictions that come along with them.

 

Here's a typical entry from a state web site's food stamp program:

 

9. What can and can’t I purchase with Food Stamps? Back to top

 

With your Food Stamp benefits you can buy milk and other dairy products; meat, fish, poultry, eggs and beans; cereals, rice, pasta and other grain products; any ingredient used for baking or cooking; fruits and vegetables; cold deli foods for home consumption; ice and water for human consumption; infant formula, some special dietetic or diabetic food and "natural" or "organic" food items; and garden seeds and plants for growing food at home.

 

With your Food Stamp benefits you can not buy any kind of beer, alcohol or wine; any type of tobacco products; nonfood items like cleaning products, soap and paper products; drugstore medicines such as aspirin, cough syrup and vitamins; items to preserve food such as jars and freezer containers; any "hot" prepared foods that are ready to eat; and foods not for people such as pet foods.

 

http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/DHHS/FOODSTAMPS/FAQs/default.htm

 

Unemployment compensation laws don't typically carry a lot of restrictions, but they're certainly intended to help you get back on track, not to give you a stake for the casino. If I thought it were feasible to track how people spend that money, I would support doing so. This is not a civil liberty issue. I'm giving you my money. You'd darn well better use it the way you've agreed to use it, or you'll be sitting in a jail sail on a fraud charge. (IMO)

 

 

Or anyone on medicare not living a healthy lifestyle?

 

I don't think you need medicare for that. Trans fat regulations are one of the most popular pieces of new local legislation in this country since Megan's Law. (grin) But I'll give this some thought; you might have a point about drawing the line at people's bodies.

 

I don't think that really casts doubt on my point about holding companies accountable for how they spend bailout funds, though. I mean let's face it, it's a pretty basic thing to want to see our money spent wisely.

[bascule]

So I should be outraged if people receiving welfare aren't spending that money on getting themselves out of the poorhouse? Or anyone on medicare not living a healthy lifestyle?

 

Only if they're on welfare because they were tangentially responsible for an international financial crisis