Obama Threatens to Abrogate AIG Contracts
 

Obama will try to block executive bonuses at AIG

Discuss.

He ought to. I can't read that right now, but heres a stupid counter-argument that, if I didn't know better, I would swear is an argument to be ripped apart...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/bu...n.html?_r=1&hp

why not just put this in the official Barrack Obama Thread???

1) Because it has broader implications on the American government & executive branch than just what the current President represents.

2) Because I wasn't thinking at the time I posted this.

/merge

hahahaha^

but yeah it's good that he's stepping up and doing that

Technically that's unconstitutional right? Not that I care what that outdated document has to say about it that much.

no.

it's like asking for a student loan then not enrolling in school and buying a car instead. you're misappropriating your loan and ignoring the primary stipulation of your contract.

these companies asked for bailout money to keep from going under, not a handout from the public coffers to pad their pockets.

here's the real stumbling block though.... seems most of the people who got paid bonuses actually worked in departments that turned a profit last year (at least that's another one of the rumors circulating the issue)

i'll try laying it out in terms most of us can understand here (movies and video games). the vivendi group owns both universal studios and blizzard entertainment, let's say everyone stops going to movies because they're all playing WoW instead. now universal studios is tanking, and they're such a large part of vivendi that now they're looking at tanking too, but blizzard is still rolling in cash. do the blizzard execs have to lose their bonuses to pay for universal studios operating costs so their parent group stays afloat? is that 'right'?

the list of AIG execs who got the big bonuses hasn't been released to the public yet, and until it does it's really all speculation as to who got what and where it came from. some people might actually deserve a bonus this year, but it definitely should NOT come out of the bailout money.

Obama needs to get angry... Hulu - Saturday Night Live: The Rock Obama

I don't see why every executive action has to go into the "Official Barack Obama Thread" he isn't Metallica; he's the President of the United States. The issues he's dealing with are more complex in terms of their scope and intricacies than what could be discussed in a single topic.

Anyway I'm positively thrilled by this of course. I wasn't happy with the way the government dealt with the fiscal troubles of these companies but since they were "bailed out" I'd like them to be as regulated as possible (nationalization would be preferable, if they're "too big to fail" then we shouldn't put them in the hands of corrupt and greedy men or we should break them up into smaller companies.) It would be preferable if no bonuses were handed out at all though and the executives and people making obscene paychecks took cuts in that area. After all if your company is on the brink of collapse every dollar counts.

I didn't read that but the title gave me a gist. He should step in, though, bonuses don't help them build the business back up, it only takes a little more out of it. Especially since it's coming straight out of the loan. If they had made a huge comeback and weren't relying on the loaned money, then a bonus would be acceptable; but they haven't and they still are, so get back to work you dumb bastards.

This idea that we don't know who the bonuses are being given to, or which department they're being given to, is simply not true. The accusation you make earlier in your post, that they're going to departments who turned profits, is also simply not true. We know it's going to the Financial Products Unit; who are the same unit which brought AIG to the state they're in now.

do you understand what the word rumor means?

are you familiar with the concept of an example?

The problem with that rumor is there's knowledge contradicting it...factual knowledge. Do you know what the word fact means?

do you really think there are no other smaller departments within something called the financial products unit?

either way, knee jerk reactions bad, 'all' the information good. i don't care to do the research necessary to find out which commodities market sucked the least last year and where that would be handled within an investing giant.

This explains it.

I think you're unaware of what the Financial Product Unit is and what they did. This was the unit whose credit default swaps were what put AIG in the situation it is now. There's no way you can say that they did a good job, turned a profit and deserve bonuses.

Greed, this is the basis of all crap that will rub our economy against the diamond and reduce us to dust.

Did anybody catch Obama on the Tonight Show? Said something about placing "checks and balances" within bail out companies to make sure they're spending money correctly.

My question: WHAT TOOK SO LONG TO THINK OF THAT! :usehead:

It didn't take that long. The Democrats had asked for it when the first bail out came about and Paulson said no. Which means, instead of not giving it, they caved in like always.

Still remaining optimisic at this point... I think what happened with AIG was bound to happen with one of the companies, and I think the public backlash, presidential anger and the (hopefull) tearing up of these contracts should prevent this from happening again. But then again theres no telling what greed will do.

I think he and AIG should figure this out, Maybe they should talk it over while bowling.

/facepalm

At least I'm asking... :shycouch:

more like i don't care to do research for people looking to argue semantics.

yeah, it wasn't the question. The constitution bars passing laws to punish past actions.

The thing you have to know is that the Obama White House is above all things politically savvy (read cunning without the pajoritive nature). To tax a bonus is only seen as "punishment" by the Republicans. There isn't any criminalization given to anyone who's taken a bonus.

The arguments here are going to be so specific, it will be the linguistical equivelent of a sword fight with splinters. You won't see heroic swipe of amazing rhetoric, this one will be ground out in a war of attrition in the darkest of cloak rooms in the supreme court and in the halls of congress.

It's not really semantics. You made either an ignorant statement or told a lie (either way it was false.) It was a rather pivotal point in your argument (you said it "seems" the loans are being given to departments who turned a profit and then went onto explain what this would mean in simpler terms.) The problem is the bonuses are not going towards a department that turned a profit instead they're going to the department that brought AIG to the state it's now. So it's a bit more than "semantics."

Where was sleepy yesterday?

I think some of the issues are slightly askew here. What I've come to understand is that a large degree of AIG was well functioning and profitable. The mortgage lending component, that got into the sub-prime mortgage market was three times more profitable, albeit 3 times more corrupt.

The issue here being that the company and some employees are getting unneeded ire because they work for that company.

Now I'll say, the idea that there associated isn't our fault, if the company wants to run themselves into the ground, so be it. but if thats out position, then we can't pick and choose. They either are allowed to play ball as a company and hand out bonuses to anyone they want, or we need to say quite a few people don't deserve to loose there jobs because they were "accomplices" in fraud.