AIG makes me sick

Cut & paste from USA Today-

Article I of the U.S. Constitution- Congress cannot pass any "Bill of Attainder" or "ex post facto" law.

A Bill of Attainder is an act of the legislature that singles out and punishes a group or individual without trial.

Wonder if that would work? I don't support them getting bonuses but I'd rather they keep the $$ than the Gov't be able to do this
 
another good article


March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision in last month’s $787 billion economic- stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc.’s bonuses.

Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said yesterday he agreed to modify restrictions on executive pay at companies receiving taxpayer assistance to exempt bonuses already agreed upon in contracts. He said he did so without realizing the change would benefit AIG, whose recent $165 million payment to employees has sparked a public furor.

Dodd said he had wanted to limit executive compensation at companies that got money from the government’s financial-rescue fund. AIG has received $173 billion in bailout money. His provision was changed as the stimulus legislation was negotiated between the House and Senate.

“I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment” to the stimulus bill, “but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG,” Dodd said in a statement released last night. “Let me be clear -- I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.” He didn’t name the administration officials who made the request.

No Insistence

An administration official said last night that representatives of President Barack Obama didn’t insist on the change, though they did contend that the language in Dodd’s amendment could be legally challenged because it would apply retroactively to bonus agreements. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity.

That provision in the stimulus bill may undercut complaints by congressional Democrats about the AIG bonuses because most of them voted for the legislation. No Republicans in the House and only three in the Senate supported the stimulus measure

“Taxpayers deserve better than this from their government, and this is just the latest reason why legislation must be transparent for all Americans to see before it is recklessly signed into law,” said Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House.

The new law, approved by Congress Feb. 13 and signed into law by Obama the next week, effectively authorized bonus arrangements at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts as long as they were in place before Feb. 11. The AIG bonuses qualified under that provision.

Obama and many lawmakers who voted for the legislation, such as Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, are demanding AIG employees surrender their bonuses.

Schumer Letter

Schumer yesterday sent a letter to AIG Chief Executive Officer Edward Liddy warning him to return bonuses or face confiscatory taxes on them. The letter was signed by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and seven other senators.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Schumer, said the senator “supported a provision on the Senate floor that would have prevented these types of bonuses, but he was not on the conference committee that negotiated the final language.”

A House vote is planned for today on a bill to impose a 90 percent tax on executive bonuses paid by AIG and other companies getting more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds.

“I expect it to pass in overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, told reporters yesterday in Washington.

Republican Attacks

Republicans seized on the provision in the stimulus bill to paint Democrats as hypocrites.

“The fact is that the bill the president signed, which protected the AIG bonuses and others, was written behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate,” Iowa Senator Charles Grassley said in a statement.

AIG donated a total of $854,905 to political campaigns in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group. AIG employees as a group represent Dodd’s fourth-biggest donor during his career, the group’s research shows. The company’s political action committee, employees and immediate family members have given Dodd more than $280,000, the group said.

Dodd said the provision was written to give the Treasury Department enough discretion to reclaim bonuses as necessary.

“Fortunately, we wrote this amendment in a way that allows the Treasury Department to go back and review these bonus contracts and seek to recover the money for taxpayers,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told lawmakers in a letter this week that department lawyers believe it would be “legally difficult” to prevent AIG from paying bonuses.

Other Democrats who voted for the stimulus bill have ramped up criticism of AIG’s bonuses, including Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who told reporters, “I think the time has come to exercise our ownership rights.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at
 
Controversial AIG unit sees more departures

Huh, who could have predicted this? Nice Job Federal Government...



NEW YORK (Reuters)—Several more employees are leaving the controversial financial products unit that brought American International Group Inc. to its knees last year, according to a person with knowledge of developments there.

The resignations are in addition to the “handful” of senior AIG Financial Products executives who have already given notice, said the person, who could not quantify the total number of departures.

To date, AIG said the situation at the financial products unit remains “manageable,” despite the departures. But if too many employees quit, Chief Executive Edward Liddy has warned it could be disastrous for AIG and, ultimately, for U.S. taxpayers who are the insurer's majority owners.

The financial products division incurred heavy mark-to- market losses on credit default swaps, a type of derivative that guarantees underlying debt against default, after the downturn in the U.S. housing market, leaving AIG so severely short of cash the U.S. government had to step in with a rescue that has since grown as large as $180 billion.

The credit default business was only a part of the financial products division, which is being shut down.

Employees there were promised retention payments more than a year ago, on condition they stayed long enough to wind down their areas of business, effectively working themselves out of a job.

But now some have changed their minds, fed up after 10 days of ridicule and scorn from lawmakers who broadly derided the bonuses, demonstrators picketing outside AIG offices and a threat by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to publicly name anyone who did not return the bonuses.
The employees still working are not the ones who caused the large losses and “are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials,” wrote Jake DeSantis, an executive vp for the Wilton, Conn.-based financial products unit, in a resignation letter printed by the New York Times on Wednesday.

Mr. DeSantis said in the letter announcing his intention to quit the company after 11 years that many employees felt “betrayed” AIG asked them to give back the bonuses after numerous assurances the payments would be honored, and made no mention of revisions to pay and bonus agreements before the matter became a maelstrom on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Liddy “deeply appreciates the frustration expressed in this letter and believes that the recent vilification and harassment of AIG employees is grossly unfair and unwarranted,” said an AIG spokeswoman.

Mr. Liddy, appointed to run AIG after it received the federal bailout last September, last week told a Congressional subcommittee the reason the company paid to retain employees was to prevent “an uncontrolled collapse of that business,” which still has $1.6 trillion in trading positions to unwind before it can close its doors.
“The financial downside for taxpayers is potentially very large and it's very real. And that's why we’re winding down that business as quickly as possible,” he said, adding that to “prevent undue risk exposure in the meantime, AIG has made a set of retention payments to employees.”

As of last month, the financial products unit employed about 370 people at offices in Connecticut, London, Paris, Hong Kong, Tokyo and in India.
 
i kinda blame AIG for this. but the govt could have said here is the money, you can only use it to better the company, no bonus's or anything to the employees, except salaries.
 
i kinda blame AIG for this. but the govt could have said here is the money, you can only use it to better the company, no bonus's or anything to the employees, except salaries.

AIG should have been put out of business. Technically, the people, you and I taxpayer Joe, own 80% and can do anything we want to. If they want to sue us over loss of bonus, let them...
 
I think it's sad? (I can't seem to find the right word) that people still expect their bonuses even though a company is failing.

I was promised 15% of my salary in bonuses this year. Have a I received it? No. Will I by June? Probably not, unless a miracle happens. Am I happy? Obviously not but I understand that we aren't taking in the money we used to and have to make cut backs. On top of that, I didn't receive any retirement this year.

It disturbs me how many people still think that they're entitled to things even though a company obviously can't pay for them.
 
AIG should have been put out of business. Technically, the people, you and I taxpayer Joe, own 80% and can do anything we want to. If they want to sue us over loss of bonus, let them...



well mine was if the insisted that they keep the company in business. btw, i didnt wanna buy stock in them, i think i can find better companies.
 
The rush to judge by the masses is scary.

I am not sure how many this applied to but I know the Exec VP that resigned today was paid a base salary of $1 over the last 12 months and his "bonus" was a retention payment that was paid to him to stick around and assist with the sale of his deparment that he ran that has been profitable.

Do you expect people to stick around and work for free for a company that may fail? Even banks that are closed, people are paid to stick around, someone has to run the day to day business.

Apparently none of you have worked for a company that has been acquired. Why stick around and work for 3-6 months or a year unless you are going to be well compensated? You know you have no job when its done and you aren't going to get anyone to come to work for the company knowing they will be out of a job in 6 months without being paid a lot of money.

Now I am not for the AIG bailout at all, nor was I for TARP, our bank didn't need it and it rescues the weak, but man, I am amazed at how fast this county is embracing socialism. Now since the government is changing the game, no one wants a part of TARP or TALF. At least some people are starting to see what BO and his socialist agenda.
 
The point is this; Regardless if our government should or should not have "bailed" out AIG the fact is they did. AIG can not operate/liquidate without key employees. AIG offered these (key) people a deal - if you stay on and help (do whatever) we will pay you this. And sure, to some people it sounded like a lot of money - excessive even. But, if those people leave and AIG just collapses then where are we? We are right back to where we were before we spent 100 or so Billion dollars. AIG failing. Thats the point.

I will pose you all a question. If I could fart and save the country a Billion dollars, would anyone have an issue with them paying me $10 million? Oh sure the media will make it out like me farting is no big deal and nowhere worth $10 million, a few House members will talk about what an outrage it is to pay me $10 million just to fart - they might go as far as saying I should commit suicide. Farting is easy and everyone does it but we all don't get $10 million. He is just lucky that when he farts it saves the country a Billion dollars - he should just fart for free.

I'll take a stand - if you say yes you would have an issue - then you are stupid.

You have to understand that when things go south for a business - it is the good employees that (can) leave first. The bad one's you can't beat away with a stick. They made a deal with the people that could help protect the $100 Billion investment the taxpayers made. I don't blame them one bit for saying a big F U and packing their boxes. So oh boy, we got those greedy asswipes and saved our 160 million. who cares if the thing implodes and costs us 100 Billion. We got them...
 
The point is this; Regardless if our government should or should not have "bailed" out AIG the fact is they did. AIG can not operate/liquidate without key employees. AIG offered these (key) people a deal - if you stay on and help (do whatever) we will pay you this. And sure, to some people it sounded like a lot of money - excessive even. But, if those people leave and AIG just collapses then where are we? We are right back to where we were before we spent 100 or so Billion dollars. AIG failing. Thats the point.

I will pose you all a question. If I could fart and save the country a Billion dollars, would anyone have an issue with them paying me $10 million? Oh sure the media will make it out like me farting is no big deal and nowhere worth $10 million, a few House members will talk about what an outrage it is to pay me $10 million just to fart - they might go as far as saying I should commit suicide. Farting is easy and everyone does it but we all don't get $10 million. He is just lucky that when he farts it saves the country a Billion dollars - he should just fart for free.

I'll take a stand - if you say yes you would have an issue - then you are stupid.

You have to understand that when things go south for a business - it is the good employees that (can) leave first. The bad one's you can't beat away with a stick. They made a deal with the people that could help protect the $100 Billion investment the taxpayers made. I don't blame them one bit for saying a big F U and packing their boxes. So oh boy, we got those greedy asswipes and saved our 160 million. who cares if the thing implodes and costs us 100 Billion. We got them...

You can only fart for 10 million because you use a Apple :D:D:26::26:
 
Back
Top