AIG

[ZenGum]

Depends ... does eliminated mean "shut down", "broken up", or "sold off" (or passed out via the anus")?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sold off brings in money. Shut down doesn't. Broken up is DeSantis.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by lookout123

TGRR... let me guess, you've gone through life talking a lot shit but accomplishing little, right?

No, actually, I've done quite nicely for myself.

Let me guess, you're one of those Starbucks Libertarians that sits in the cafe by the college, ranting about "personal responsibility" while you swill lattes paid for with daddy's credit card, right?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

normally banks pulled in by FDIC are sold off to bigger better banks, but I think we'll have to wait for the dust to settle before that happens.

Just what we need, even bigger banks, when the ones we have are already too big to fail.

*quote* "if they're too big to fail, shouldn't they be too big to exist?"

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Jake DeSantis is angry because he and his cow orkers are being punished when they were not the ones that caused AIG's demise. I'm not so sure the people in the unemployment lines will have much pity for Jake DeSantis, as I doubt many of them feel they are the cause of their former employers problems. When the ship goes down, everybody gets wet.

What's a cow orker?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lookout123

They are an insurance company which means they must maintain a hefty cash reserve ratio. When things went down the shitter they had to raise capital quickly. Which do you think would be easier to get good value from, profitable business unit or one overflowing with toxic assets?

My understanding is the particular division that caused all the trouble was so complicated, and the contracts were so convoluted, they had to "unwind" those contracts, and they apparently needed people who understood them to stick around to do. I didn't realize they eliminated healthy parts of the company though in order to do that.

As I said before, this could have been avoided if the company had just agreed to pay them the bonuses AFTER they paid back the taxpayers. It isn't right for that burden to fall on taxpayers, when they are themselves losing jobs and having to take cuts in pay, etc.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

What's a cow orker?

It's a Dilbert term, meaning the office grazers you are forced to work with.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

As I said before, this could have been avoided if the company had just agreed to pay them the bonuses AFTER they paid back the taxpayers. It isn't right for that burden to fall on taxpayers, when they are themselves losing jobs and having to take cuts in pay, etc.

Yup, they could have just hired a bunch of outside contractors from some temp agency to figure it all out - That would have been much cheaper, faster and more efficient - right?

And call them what they were - retention payments not bonuses.
If that word was not used this would never have been an issue to begin with.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by TGRR

No, actually, I've done quite nicely for myself.

Let me guess, you're one of those Starbucks Libertarians that sits in the cafe by the college, ranting about "personal responsibility" while you swill lattes paid for with daddy's credit card, right?

Hey it's not polite to look up someone's IP and find their real identity. I'm telling my dad.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

Yup, they could have just hired a bunch of outside contractors from some temp agency to figure it all out - That would have been much cheaper, faster and more efficient - right?

And call them what they were - retention payments not bonuses.
If that word was not used this would never have been an issue to begin with.

So who the fuck wants to retain the useless bastards?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

As I said before, this could have been avoided if the company had just agreed to pay them the bonuses AFTER they paid back the taxpayers. It isn't right for that burden to fall on taxpayers, when they are themselves losing jobs and having to take cuts in pay, etc.

Many things could be avoided if the signed contracts which are the bounding fabric of a civilized society can be ignored or subverted on a whim. Life isn't fair; but the alternative to a rules-based system is a chaotic hellhole ruled by conflicting, crackpot mob mentalities, all shouting each other down to establish their 15 minutes of illogical dominance. You don't let two-year-olds have a cookie every time they want one--even if they throw a fit. ESPECIALLY not then. You're the parent, you BOUGHT that cookie. There was an agreement between you and the cashier at the grocery store, wherein you exchanged currency for baked goods. A screaming toddler demanding that cookie because they WANT IT doesn't change the facts.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What if you bought those cookies with money the child got from Grandma for his birthday?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TGRR

So who the fuck wants to retain the useless bastards?

These people were not involved in that particular department. They were chosen to due certain tasks and were promised payment to stay till the job was done. These people did as asked and the Gov't is basically reneging on the deal.

Furthermore this situation has led into other damaging issues as well including selective taxation, taxation as a punitive measure, the validity of a contract as Flint explains and more.

Originally Posted by Flint

Many things could be avoided if the signed contracts which are the bounding fabric of a civilized society can be ignored or subverted on a whim. Life isn't fair; but the alternative to a rules-based system is a chaotic hellhole...

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

These people were not involved in that particular department. They were chosen to due certain tasks and were promised payment to stay till the job was done. These people did as asked and the Gov't is basically reneging on the deal.

$169 million of the $208 million in bonuses were paid on the troubled financial services side of AIG.

11 people who received these so-called "retention bonuses" no longer work there.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11954328

Screw that. They had a deal with their employer. Their employer no longer works there, and they have a new boss.