You're over-generalizing who got the bonuses and why, without any evidence to back it up. These people met contractually specified performance goals. You're taking a general disdain for the downside of capitalism and trying to blame and punish specific people whom you know nothing about for it by taking away compensation they rightfully earned.
These people helmed a sinking ship.
I don't think the capitalistic viewpoint is to reward failure.
So has their been any update on the Coleman Frankin race? Last I heard closing arguments were sometime last week. Did they announce a date for the verdict?
It should be sometime this week, supposedly. After which Frankin will probably get seated as Coleman appeals.
The GOP's already said they'll filibuster without the certificate. So unless we have a Republican willing to buck on that, this isn't ending yet.
After the ruling he should get the certificate, though, and be allowed to represent the state during the appeals process.
You're over-generalizing who got the bonuses and why, without any evidence to back it up. These people met contractually specified performance goals. You're taking a general disdain for the downside of capitalism and trying to blame and punish specific people whom you know nothing about for it by taking away compensation they rightfully earned.
[citation required]
Because that's not why they're getting the bonuses. They are getting the bonuses as an incentive to retain the very employees who helped cause a huge part of the current economic recession/depression because no one else can follow their essentially criminal financial schemes. It was new money, not pay based on some set performance level.
How about you read up on the situation before posting? These are all contracutally obligated payments.
AIG is contractually obligated to pay bonuses. AIG has no money. Let them sue AIG for money they do not have. The government is not obligated to pay their bonuses, and had they put a clause in that this money can't be used for that, we would not be paying their bonuses.
You're over-generalizing who got the bonuses and why, without any evidence to back it up. These people met contractually specified performance goals. You're taking a general disdain for the downside of capitalism and trying to blame and punish specific people whom you know nothing about for it by taking away compensation they rightfully earned.
[citation required]
Because that's not why they're getting the bonuses. They are getting the bonuses as an incentive to retain the very employees who helped cause a huge part of the current economic recession/depression because no one else can follow their essentially criminal financial schemes. It was new money, not pay based on some set performance level.
How about you read up on the situation before posting? These are all contracutally obligated payments.
Yar, there is over $150 million in bonuses going to derivatives traders. The only possible way they met specified performance goals is if those goals were laughably easy to achieve, making them virtually guaranteed income. It highlights the major flaws in compensation at financial institutions, where the traders had no reason to show any restraint because they would never eat any downside.
I agree that these bonuses probably have to be paid. But we shouldn't let a situation like this occur again because it flies in the face of any kind of logic.
The government gave AIG money to fix it's shit, so in essence we gave these people a damn job. If it wasn't for that they wouldn't have one.
Right, and AIG is now wondering, "When you said, 'fix your shit,' did you mean to refuse to pay employees what they are owed? Because we didn't get that message and we don't feel that will help us get on the right track."
Sanstodo, I agree. But, this is all grandstanding. Look at the similar shennanigans with Merrill.
Bank of America has cooperated with the attorney general's investigation into Merrill Lynch bonuses and will continue to do so," spokesman Scott Silvestri said in a statement. "Regarding the bonus information requested, Bank of America has continually offered to provide that information subject to reasonable confidentiality."
Cuomo's office said that the bank has not demonstrated that it had ever "treated the information in a confidential manner."
Cuomo doesn't care about actually reviewing their compensation for malfeasance, he wants to exploit the current political climate to further the issue of executive pay to the public, with himself and others as the champions of good against evil corporate America. His using an obvious logical fallacy to avoid reasonable investigation into the matter in favor of publicity.
AIG is contractually obligated to pay bonuses. AIG has no money. Let them sue AIG for money they do not have. The government is not obligated to pay their bonuses, and had they put a clause in that this money can't be used for that, we would not be paying their bonuses.
Again, all the money was used to fulfill contractual obligations. A whole lot more money (like 100 times more) went to fulfill contracts with foreign banks than did contracts with domestic employees. Your argument doesn't really hold much of anything. You're saying that AIG just shouldn't be paying money they owe their employees, because you want to continue to believe that there are villians there who deserve their punishment.
You're over-generalizing who got the bonuses and why, without any evidence to back it up. These people met contractually specified performance goals. You're taking a general disdain for the downside of capitalism and trying to blame and punish specific people whom you know nothing about for it by taking away compensation they rightfully earned.
These people helmed a sinking ship.
I don't think the capitalistic viewpoint is to reward failure.
Well, for better or worse, the capitalistic viewpoint is to make contracts that stipulate payment on showing up and trying, rather than actually succeeding.
You're over-generalizing who got the bonuses and why, without any evidence to back it up. These people met contractually specified performance goals. You're taking a general disdain for the downside of capitalism and trying to blame and punish specific people whom you know nothing about for it by taking away compensation they rightfully earned.
[citation required]
Because that's not why they're getting the bonuses. They are getting the bonuses as an incentive to retain the very employees who helped cause a huge part of the current economic recession/depression because no one else can follow their essentially criminal financial schemes. It was new money, not pay based on some set performance level.
How about you read up on the situation before posting? These are all contracutally obligated payments.
AIG is contractually obligated to pay bonuses. AIG has no money. Let them sue AIG for money they do not have. The government is not obligated to pay their bonuses, and had they put a clause in that this money can't be used for that, we would not be paying their bonuses.
Additionally, an executive who gets too publically upset over not getting the bonus is not going to be looked on so highly by other potential employers in the financial sector, since they don't want to deal with an internal backlash if they go under, which pretty much everyone is at risk of right now, so there is incentive to keep tantrums to a minimum.
You're over-generalizing who got the bonuses and why, without any evidence to back it up. These people met contractually specified performance goals. You're taking a general disdain for the downside of capitalism and trying to blame and punish specific people whom you know nothing about for it by taking away compensation they rightfully earned.
[citation required]
Because that's not why they're getting the bonuses. They are getting the bonuses as an incentive to retain the very employees who helped cause a huge part of the current economic recession/depression because no one else can follow their essentially criminal financial schemes. It was new money, not pay based on some set performance level.
The entitlement culture in the financial industry has is pretty staggering.
Jsut because you make lots of money doesn't entitle you to always make lots of money. People in every sector getting laid off or getting pay freezes. There's nothing magical about being in finance that means you "have to" make x amount of dollars.
The world sucks sometimes and people get screwed over. So where do we draw the line? Anyone under 50k a year can't get a salary cut? 100K? A million?
You're over-generalizing who got the bonuses and why, without any evidence to back it up. These people met contractually specified performance goals. You're taking a general disdain for the downside of capitalism and trying to blame and punish specific people whom you know nothing about for it by taking away compensation they rightfully earned.
[citation required]
Because that's not why they're getting the bonuses. They are getting the bonuses as an incentive to retain the very employees who helped cause a huge part of the current economic recession/depression because no one else can follow their essentially criminal financial schemes. It was new money, not pay based on some set performance level.
How about you read up on the situation before posting? These are all contracutally obligated payments.
Yar, there is over $150 million in bonuses going to derivatives traders. The only possible way they met specified performance goals is if those goals were laughably easy to achieve, making them virtually guaranteed income. It highlights the major flaws in compensation at financial institutions, where the traders had no reason to show any restraint because they would never eat any downside.
I agree that these bonuses probably have to be paid. But we shouldn't let a situation like this occur again because it flies in the face of any kind of logic.
They may have to be paid, but they don't have to be paid with government money.
Evander on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
So has their been any update on the Coleman Frankin race? Last I heard closing arguments were sometime last week. Did they announce a date for the verdict?
It should be sometime this week, supposedly. After which Frankin will probably get seated as Coleman appeals.
The GOP's already said they'll filibuster without the certificate. So unless we have a Republican willing to buck on that, this isn't ending yet.
After the ruling he should get the certificate, though, and be allowed to represent the state during the appeals process.
Except that Pawlenty is the guy that would have to sign it and I think he wants to let it play out.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had to make a tough choice in filling a vacant slot on her state's Supreme Court: Appoint a woman who once served on the board of Planned Parenthood, or risk giving an environmentalist lawyer, also pro-choice on abortion, the chance to become an activist judge.
Mrs. Palin, a pro-lifer who ran as the Republican vice presidential candidate last fall, rankled social conservatives by choosing Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen, the woman with Planned Parenthood ties, over Eric Smith.
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), said the appointment has "caused many of us to take a step back. We're surprised."
Members of the Alaska Family Council (AFC), a nonprofit devoted to advancing socially conservative causes, encouraged Mrs. Palin to appoint Mr. Smith, and more than 100 people sent letters to the governor's office urging her to do so.
But Mrs. Palin ultimately chose Judge Christen and said "I have every confidence that Judge Christen has the experience, intellect, wisdom and character to be an outstanding Supreme Court Justice."
...
So Palin put a former President of Planned Parenthood on the Alaska Supreme Court with nary a fight to be had. Hardly something that'll endear her to the evangelicals, regardless of State law basically tying her hands. Good news for Huckabee and Jindal. And humanity, I guess.
Sounds to me like she's workin' on bein' a team player instead of blindly following what passes for the norm with social conservatives. I don't think she's gonna sway anyone's opinions about her, but you never know....
You'd think she'd already be working on swaying people's opinions rather than holding off on that until 2010/11, but maybe that's expecting too much from her.
Would the governor, a smiling Stevens asked, like to share some of her plans and proposals for the coming legislative session?
Palin looked around the room and paused, according to several senators present. "I feel like you guys are always trying to put me on the spot," she said finally, as the room became silent.
moniker on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Are we talking about the Geitner/Summers nationalize the bad assets plan? This is not good use of my taxes (I don't pay any, so make that YOUR taxes). If not, I would be curious as to what other ideas G&S are pursuing, as I've not heard anything unretarded. But maybe there has been something new.
Buying the whacked-out mortgage securities, doing a dispassionate audit, and reselling them at fair market value is the only viable solution to this I can see outside of just painting the town red.
The imaginary GOP intelligence asks why Joe the Taxdollar should be limited to the distressed portion of the balance sheet. If the company is insolvent (which it is, that's why we are talking about this), why would we only take the dubious assets?
This is nationalizing the losses.
This is taking your tax dollars and magically turning them into less tax dollars.
This is a pretty good deal for the banks, who get to sell their pile of shit, then buy back the golden nuggets buried deep in the pile of financial diarrhea.
edit: bad => dubious
Because it allows the Fed to refinance the mortgages to interest rates that are not completely retarded.
Also because I don't like the idea of the Fed effectively owning the entirety of America's international banking industry.
I don't like the idea of throwing away billions of dollars just because some people are scared of a temporary bank nationalization.
ps complete seizure of BANKRUPT banks will allow mortgage rates to be adjusted to reasonable levels, if you care to.
Actually it's not really just throwing away money when you buy the toxic assets. It's important to remember they aren't worthless, they just have no street price right now because no one's really gone through them to see how bad they are and everyone's worried they might get worse if more people default.
The government would likely make money on these things if they bought them low enough. A reverse auction would probably be best; those banks most desperate to get them off the sheets and most needing of cash infusions would accept the lowest prices, likely well below what the assets are actually worth. Once there's a nice, airy accounting of the stuff and they become actually worth something as people pay their debts off, the taxpayer gets their money back.
In theory.
So it might, maybe, make some dollars. If people stop defaulting. And if they aren't that bad already. And if the government buys them low enough. Seems like a long-shot.
Why is this better than taking an appropriate share of real equity, instead of just the questionable assets, where the taxpayer is guaranteed to see any returns.
A fair number of people could default and still have this work, and we'd be buying them at a price below what these banks think are reasonable prices in the long term. If it went down in value, it would only go down by a marginal amount. If we take a share of real equity, there's no guarantee that the bank survives, and the troubled assets are still on the books. In that scenario, the banks could collapse and We the People would lose out on the vast majority or all of our original investment.
So has their been any update on the Coleman Frankin race? Last I heard closing arguments were sometime last week. Did they announce a date for the verdict?
It should be sometime this week, supposedly. After which Frankin will probably get seated as Coleman appeals.
The GOP's already said they'll filibuster without the certificate. So unless we have a Republican willing to buck on that, this isn't ending yet.
After the ruling he should get the certificate, though, and be allowed to represent the state during the appeals process.
Except that Pawlenty is the guy that would have to sign it and I think he wants to let it play out.
"Education is key," said the RNC Chair. "It is where it begins, for all of us... If we understand the difference between Marxism, socialism and capitalism; if we understand the difference between a Roberto Mussolini, an Adolf Hitler, and a Franklin Roosevelt, and his honor the honorable Winston Churchill, if we know those differences than we can appreciate what these times mean. And how history is a precursor of things to come."
Yeah that Roberto guy was a dick. Almost as bad as that Benito.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
Oh, speaking of, I just pulled something from the Politico wire. We have a name on the rumor mill to replace Michael Steele if and when they chuck him.
Are we talking about the Geitner/Summers nationalize the bad assets plan? This is not good use of my taxes (I don't pay any, so make that YOUR taxes). If not, I would be curious as to what other ideas G&S are pursuing, as I've not heard anything unretarded. But maybe there has been something new.
Buying the whacked-out mortgage securities, doing a dispassionate audit, and reselling them at fair market value is the only viable solution to this I can see outside of just painting the town red.
The imaginary GOP intelligence asks why Joe the Taxdollar should be limited to the distressed portion of the balance sheet. If the company is insolvent (which it is, that's why we are talking about this), why would we only take the dubious assets?
This is nationalizing the losses.
This is taking your tax dollars and magically turning them into less tax dollars.
This is a pretty good deal for the banks, who get to sell their pile of shit, then buy back the golden nuggets buried deep in the pile of financial diarrhea.
edit: bad => dubious
Because it allows the Fed to refinance the mortgages to interest rates that are not completely retarded.
Also because I don't like the idea of the Fed effectively owning the entirety of America's international banking industry.
I don't like the idea of throwing away billions of dollars just because some people are scared of a temporary bank nationalization.
ps complete seizure of BANKRUPT banks will allow mortgage rates to be adjusted to reasonable levels, if you care to.
Actually it's not really just throwing away money when you buy the toxic assets. It's important to remember they aren't worthless, they just have no street price right now because no one's really gone through them to see how bad they are and everyone's worried they might get worse if more people default.
The government would likely make money on these things if they bought them low enough. A reverse auction would probably be best; those banks most desperate to get them off the sheets and most needing of cash infusions would accept the lowest prices, likely well below what the assets are actually worth. Once there's a nice, airy accounting of the stuff and they become actually worth something as people pay their debts off, the taxpayer gets their money back.
In theory.
So it might, maybe, make some dollars. If people stop defaulting. And if they aren't that bad already. And if the government buys them low enough. Seems like a long-shot.
Why is this better than taking an appropriate share of real equity, instead of just the questionable assets, where the taxpayer is guaranteed to see any returns.
A fair number of people could default and still have this work, and we'd be buying them at a price below what these banks think are reasonable prices in the long term. If it went down in value, it would only go down by a marginal amount. If we take a share of real equity, there's no guarantee that the bank survives, and the troubled assets are still on the books. In that scenario, the banks could collapse and We the People would lose out on the vast majority or all of our original investment.
Only if those assets you're talking about buying turn out to be crap. We lose harder if we only get the bad.
EDIT: GOP!!!! see you guys in an economics thread in the future....
thisisntwally on
#someshit
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Oh, speaking off, I just pulled something from the Politico wire. We have a name on the rumor mill to replace Michael Steele if and when they chuck him.
Oh, speaking of, I just pulled something from the Politico wire. We have a name on the rumor mill to replace Michael Steele if and when they chuck him.
The government gave AIG money to fix it's shit, so in essence we gave these people a damn job. If it wasn't for that they wouldn't have one.
Right, and AIG is now wondering, "When you said, 'fix your shit,' did you mean to refuse to pay employees what they are owed? Because we didn't get that message and we don't feel that will help us get on the right track."
Sanstodo, I agree. But, this is all grandstanding. Look at the similar shennanigans with Merrill.
Bank of America has cooperated with the attorney general's investigation into Merrill Lynch bonuses and will continue to do so," spokesman Scott Silvestri said in a statement. "Regarding the bonus information requested, Bank of America has continually offered to provide that information subject to reasonable confidentiality."
Cuomo's office said that the bank has not demonstrated that it had ever "treated the information in a confidential manner."
Cuomo doesn't care about actually reviewing their compensation for malfeasance, he wants to exploit the current political climate to further the issue of executive pay to the public, with himself and others as the champions of good against evil corporate America. His using an obvious logical fallacy to avoid reasonable investigation into the matter in favor of publicity.
AIG is contractually obligated to pay bonuses. AIG has no money. Let them sue AIG for money they do not have. The government is not obligated to pay their bonuses, and had they put a clause in that this money can't be used for that, we would not be paying their bonuses.
Again, all the money was used to fulfill contractual obligations. A whole lot more money (like 100 times more) went to fulfill contracts with foreign banks than did contracts with domestic employees. Your argument doesn't really hold much of anything. You're saying that AIG just shouldn't be paying money they owe their employees, because you want to continue to believe that there are villians there who deserve their punishment.
Yeah, I agree. Populist outrage might actually hurt the recovery because, like it or not, additional bailouts of financial institutions are going to be necessary. We haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this, considering the massive amount of toxic debt still gumming up the sheets of Citigroup, BofA, etc.
I think people have their hearts in the right place (this isn't FAIR!) but the sad truth is that it isn't fair but we have to live with that for now so we can fix what's broken to get our economy going again. We can save the grandstanding and arm waving for AFTER this is all over (and hopefully, we can change things so we don't have to do this again any time soon).
The government gave AIG money to fix it's shit, so in essence we gave these people a damn job. If it wasn't for that they wouldn't have one.
Right, and AIG is now wondering, "When you said, 'fix your shit,' did you mean to refuse to pay employees what they are owed? Because we didn't get that message and we don't feel that will help us get on the right track."
Sanstodo, I agree. But, this is all grandstanding. Look at the similar shennanigans with Merrill.
Bank of America has cooperated with the attorney general's investigation into Merrill Lynch bonuses and will continue to do so," spokesman Scott Silvestri said in a statement. "Regarding the bonus information requested, Bank of America has continually offered to provide that information subject to reasonable confidentiality."
Cuomo's office said that the bank has not demonstrated that it had ever "treated the information in a confidential manner."
Cuomo doesn't care about actually reviewing their compensation for malfeasance, he wants to exploit the current political climate to further the issue of executive pay to the public, with himself and others as the champions of good against evil corporate America. His using an obvious logical fallacy to avoid reasonable investigation into the matter in favor of publicity.
AIG is contractually obligated to pay bonuses. AIG has no money. Let them sue AIG for money they do not have. The government is not obligated to pay their bonuses, and had they put a clause in that this money can't be used for that, we would not be paying their bonuses.
Again, all the money was used to fulfill contractual obligations. A whole lot more money (like 100 times more) went to fulfill contracts with foreign banks than did contracts with domestic employees. Your argument doesn't really hold much of anything. You're saying that AIG just shouldn't be paying money they owe their employees, because you want to continue to believe that there are villians there who deserve their punishment.
Yeah, I agree. Populist outrage might actually hurt the recovery because, like it or not, additional bailouts of financial institutions are going to be necessary. We haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this, considering the massive amount of toxic debt still gumming up the sheets of Citigroup, BofA, etc.
I think people have their hearts in the right place (this isn't FAIR!) but the sad truth is that it isn't fair but we have to live with that for now so we can fix what's broken to get our economy going again. We can save the grandstanding and arm waving for AFTER this is all over (and hopefully, we can change things so we don't have to do this again any time soon).
I actually don't mind the bailouts of the financial institutions so much. But I honestly can't stand that we're also bailing out the individuals who feel entitled to massive wealth regardless if they do well. Especially at AIG since the American taxpayers essentially own the company. If any of us were to fail miserably at our jobs and then gave our boss the finger and shat on his desk when he called us on it, we'd be fired. Why aren't these people?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The government gave AIG money to fix it's shit, so in essence we gave these people a damn job. If it wasn't for that they wouldn't have one.
Right, and AIG is now wondering, "When you said, 'fix your shit,' did you mean to refuse to pay employees what they are owed? Because we didn't get that message and we don't feel that will help us get on the right track."
Sanstodo, I agree. But, this is all grandstanding. Look at the similar shennanigans with Merrill.
Bank of America has cooperated with the attorney general's investigation into Merrill Lynch bonuses and will continue to do so," spokesman Scott Silvestri said in a statement. "Regarding the bonus information requested, Bank of America has continually offered to provide that information subject to reasonable confidentiality."
Cuomo's office said that the bank has not demonstrated that it had ever "treated the information in a confidential manner."
Cuomo doesn't care about actually reviewing their compensation for malfeasance, he wants to exploit the current political climate to further the issue of executive pay to the public, with himself and others as the champions of good against evil corporate America. His using an obvious logical fallacy to avoid reasonable investigation into the matter in favor of publicity.
AIG is contractually obligated to pay bonuses. AIG has no money. Let them sue AIG for money they do not have. The government is not obligated to pay their bonuses, and had they put a clause in that this money can't be used for that, we would not be paying their bonuses.
Again, all the money was used to fulfill contractual obligations. A whole lot more money (like 100 times more) went to fulfill contracts with foreign banks than did contracts with domestic employees. Your argument doesn't really hold much of anything. You're saying that AIG just shouldn't be paying money they owe their employees, because you want to continue to believe that there are villians there who deserve their punishment.
Yeah, I agree. Populist outrage might actually hurt the recovery because, like it or not, additional bailouts of financial institutions are going to be necessary. We haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this, considering the massive amount of toxic debt still gumming up the sheets of Citigroup, BofA, etc.
I think people have their hearts in the right place (this isn't FAIR!) but the sad truth is that it isn't fair but we have to live with that for now so we can fix what's broken to get our economy going again. We can save the grandstanding and arm waving for AFTER this is all over (and hopefully, we can change things so we don't have to do this again any time soon).
But.. but they posted a profit! That means they are golden again right? Just pay no attention to the pile of MBSs behind the curtain.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
AIG is contractually obligated to pay bonuses. AIG has no money. Let them sue AIG for money they do not have. The government is not obligated to pay their bonuses, and had they put a clause in that this money can't be used for that, we would not be paying their bonuses.
Again, all the money was used to fulfill contractual obligations. A whole lot more money (like 100 times more) went to fulfill contracts with foreign banks than did contracts with domestic employees. Your argument doesn't really hold much of anything. You're saying that AIG just shouldn't be paying money they owe their employees, because you want to continue to believe that there are villians there who deserve their punishment.
No, he's saying that the government should have (and would have been within their rights to) stipulate exactly WHICH contractual obligations the money was meant to cover.
Let's say that you have a brother-in-law who is in a lot of debt. Two particular items of his debt are an overdue heating bill (he has no heat at home, as a result) and a rack of late fees at blockbuster (he is no longer allowed to rent videos there as a result).
If you give him money to pay off the heating bill, but he goes and clears his blockbuster debt instead, would you be happy with him? Would you lend him money again in the future?
"Thank you, thank you," he said. "We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right? Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this. Like we know what this planet is all about. How long have we been here? How long? Not very long."
What the ....?
Greenland is called Greenland because the Vikings mere master bullshitters. And Iceland has been green (in the places where it is now) since it was settled. I mean, this is 4th grade history caliber stuff here.
@Yar: I think you're deflating their base compensation. My friend is still a junior banker at one of the smaller firms on Wall Street and made $60,000 in base salary her first year on the job while receiving an $80,000 bonus at the end of her first year. That is not lower-middle class, not by a long-shot, particularly for a single person with no children (and it doesn't count all of the perks that came along with her job, like black car service and meals). $60,000 is a lot of money right out of college, with little work experience other than internships at financial institutions. It's hardly lower-middle class, even in NYC.
Really, people who make $60K need to be denied their bonuses? How far does wealth hatred reach? $50K? $40K? I think the answer is, "anyone who makes more than me."
Yeah, I agree. Populist outrage might actually hurt the recovery because, like it or not, additional bailouts of financial institutions are going to be necessary. We haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this, considering the massive amount of toxic debt still gumming up the sheets of Citigroup, BofA, etc.
I think people have their hearts in the right place (this isn't FAIR!) but the sad truth is that it isn't fair but we have to live with that for now so we can fix what's broken to get our economy going again. We can save the grandstanding and arm waving for AFTER this is all over (and hopefully, we can change things so we don't have to do this again any time soon).
Yeah I guess I'm just looking for a little more detail and direction in people's wrath. The media likes to throw big numbers and weighted words at you, and I just am dumbfounded at the amount of rage that even the President himself seems to pretend at all this, without even knowing the specifics and the rationale.
The current CEO has only been there a few months, coming in after much of the bailout money, and he was put there by the government. He makes $1/year, and all the executives already voluntarily gave up all 2008 bonuses and 2009 raises. He is the one saying that these remaing bonuses to non-execs are owed and cannot be cancelled. We aren't talking about executives anymore. At some point you ahve to accept that in order to keep doing business, people have to be paid what they were told they'd be paid.
"Thank you, thank you," he said. "We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right? Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this. Like we know what this planet is all about. How long have we been here? How long? Not very long."
What the ....?
Greenland is called Greenland because the Vikings mere master bullshitters. And Iceland has been green (in the places where it is now) since it was settled. I mean, this is 4th grade history caliber stuff here.
Wait, seriously? He didn't know that? Oh dear god, why is this...you know what, no. I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that paragraph.
I actually don't mind the bailouts of the financial institutions so much. But I honestly can't stand that we're also bailing out the individuals who feel entitled to massive wealth regardless if they do well. Especially at AIG since the American taxpayers essentially own the company. If any of us were to fail miserably at our jobs and then gave our boss the finger and shat on his desk when he called us on it, we'd be fired. Why aren't these people?
I don't know how you separate a financial institution from its contracts, even if some of those contracts require it to pay out bonuses to individuals who fucked everything up. There's no way to do one without the other. We can't break these contracts because we don't like them or they're unfair. That's not how our system works (nor should it. Respecting contracts is essential to any economy).
To get this back on track: My issue with the GOP is that they have no ideas about how to get us out of this mess plus their resistance to regulation of any kind (other than of uteruses and marriage) prevents them from adding to the conversation of how to stop this from happening again. Plus, I've even heard Republicans talking about a spending freeze (wow, way to push the exact WRONG thing to do). It's pathetic.
I'm hoping for a Bloomberg party to take over where the GOP has fallen short, so we can have a reasonable discourse rather than shouting past each other.
"Thank you, thank you," he said. "We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right? Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this. Like we know what this planet is all about. How long have we been here? How long? Not very long."
What the ....?
Greenland is called Greenland because the Vikings mere master bullshitters. And Iceland has been green (in the places where it is now) since it was settled. I mean, this is 4th grade history caliber stuff here.
Wait, seriously? He didn't know that? Oh dear god, why is this...you know what, no. I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that paragraph.
No, he's saying that the government should have (and would have been within their rights to) stipulate exactly WHICH contractual obligations the money was meant to cover.
Let's say that you have a brother-in-law who is in a lot of debt. Two particular items of his debt are an overdue heating bill (he has no heat at home, as a result) and a rack of late fees at blockbuster (he is no longer allowed to rent videos there as a result).
If you give him money to pay off the heating bill, but he goes and clears his blockbuster debt instead, would you be happy with him? Would you lend him money again in the future?
No need for the analogies, I get that. That is the "government should have done their due diligence" part. At this point AIG doesn't have any legal standing not to pay the bonuses.
Again, all the money was used to fulfill contractual obligations. A whole lot more money (like 100 times more) went to fulfill contracts with foreign banks than did contracts with domestic employees. Your argument doesn't really hold much of anything. You're saying that AIG just shouldn't be paying money they owe their employees, because you want to continue to believe that there are villians there who deserve their punishment.
Paying off financial obligations to another bank or business is not the same as paying off bonuses to people who work there. The government could have said "hey, you don't have any fucking money. Here is some money to pay off other banks and insure your shit so you don't go under", the government has no obligation give them any money, and they do not have to give them money to pay off employees that wouldn't even have a paycheck.
These people can then sue AIG. Maybe by the time the company turns around and makes a profit AIG could pay off their contractual bonuses.
Yeah, I agree. Populist outrage might actually hurt the recovery because, like it or not, additional bailouts of financial institutions are going to be necessary. We haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this, considering the massive amount of toxic debt still gumming up the sheets of Citigroup, BofA, etc.
Bailing out the banks is one thing if that money is used for items to prevent things for getting worse. IE money to cover the junk items, make loans, and pay of their debt to other banks. I don't think anybody is against that. But having the government pay the bonuses of private employees is not something we are obligated to do. This isn't punishing anybody.
If I scream and yell "I want 1 million dollars" and the government doesn't give me it, that's not a punishment. Because the government had no obligation to give that cash in the first place.
No need for the analogies, I get that. That is the "government should have done their due diligence" part. At this point AIG doesn't have any legal standing not to pay the bonuses.
But we can make sure this doesn't happen again. The government knew this was going to happen, and yet did it anyway. Now we are all left holding the mess.
@Yar: I think you're deflating their base compensation. My friend is still a junior banker at one of the smaller firms on Wall Street and made $60,000 in base salary her first year on the job while receiving an $80,000 bonus at the end of her first year. That is not lower-middle class, not by a long-shot, particularly for a single person with no children (and it doesn't count all of the perks that came along with her job, like black car service and meals). $60,000 is a lot of money right out of college, with little work experience other than internships at financial institutions. It's hardly lower-middle class, even in NYC.
Really, people who make $60K need to be denied their bonuses? How far does wealth hatred reach? $50K? $40K? I think the answer is, "anyone who makes more than me."
Yeah, I agree. Populist outrage might actually hurt the recovery because, like it or not, additional bailouts of financial institutions are going to be necessary. We haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this, considering the massive amount of toxic debt still gumming up the sheets of Citigroup, BofA, etc.
I think people have their hearts in the right place (this isn't FAIR!) but the sad truth is that it isn't fair but we have to live with that for now so we can fix what's broken to get our economy going again. We can save the grandstanding and arm waving for AFTER this is all over (and hopefully, we can change things so we don't have to do this again any time soon).
Yeah I guess I'm just looking for a little more detail and direction in people's wrath. The media likes to throw big numbers and weighted words at you, and I just am dumbfounded at the amount of rage that even the President himself seems to pretend at all this, without even knowing the specifics and the rationale.
The current CEO has only been there a few months, coming in after much of the bailout money, and he was put there by the government. He makes $1/year, and all the executives already voluntarily gave up all 2008 bonuses and 2009 raises. He is the one saying that these remaing bonuses to non-execs are owed and cannot be cancelled. We aren't talking about executives anymore. At some point you ahve to accept that in order to keep doing business, people have to be paid what they were told they'd be paid.
True ebnough
They contractually will have to pay the people their money. however saying it's "just how they do business" is silly. Maybe it's time they fundamentally reevaluated how they do business because their current model obviously sucks some serious cock.
@Yar: I think you're deflating their base compensation. My friend is still a junior banker at one of the smaller firms on Wall Street and made $60,000 in base salary her first year on the job while receiving an $80,000 bonus at the end of her first year. That is not lower-middle class, not by a long-shot, particularly for a single person with no children (and it doesn't count all of the perks that came along with her job, like black car service and meals). $60,000 is a lot of money right out of college, with little work experience other than internships at financial institutions. It's hardly lower-middle class, even in NYC.
Really, people who make $60K need to be denied their bonuses? How far does wealth hatred reach? $50K? $40K? I think the answer is, "anyone who makes more than me."
Yeah, I agree. Populist outrage might actually hurt the recovery because, like it or not, additional bailouts of financial institutions are going to be necessary. We haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this, considering the massive amount of toxic debt still gumming up the sheets of Citigroup, BofA, etc.
I think people have their hearts in the right place (this isn't FAIR!) but the sad truth is that it isn't fair but we have to live with that for now so we can fix what's broken to get our economy going again. We can save the grandstanding and arm waving for AFTER this is all over (and hopefully, we can change things so we don't have to do this again any time soon).
Yeah I guess I'm just looking for a little more detail and direction in people's wrath. The media likes to throw big numbers and weighted words at you, and I just am dumbfounded at the amount of rage that even the President himself seems to pretend at all this, without even knowing the specifics and the rationale.
The current CEO has only been there a few months, coming in after much of the bailout money, and he was put there by the government. He makes $1/year, and all the executives already voluntarily gave up all 2008 bonuses and 2009 raises. He is the one saying that these remaing bonuses to non-execs are owed and cannot be cancelled. We aren't talking about executives anymore. At some point you ahve to accept that in order to keep doing business, people have to be paid what they were told they'd be paid.
Yar, I never said that she needed to be denied her bonus. I said that their salaries are not lower-middle class as you stated. In any case, $60k right out of college is pretty damn good. She makes considerably more than that now in base salary (her bank isn't paying out bonuses this year) but is still complaining horribly. I have little sympathy, considering that she A) still has a job, her company received billions of bailout dollars, and C) performs a job that, in her own words, could be performed by a monkey if you gave it enough caffeine to stay awake. She openly admits that she could have lived quite comfortably during her first year on her base salary of $60,000 (plus a $10,000 relocation allowance, $25 per meal allowance, free gym, generous health insurance, free black car service, etc.). But she openly admits that she joined up for one reason only: to get as much money as quickly as possible.
I agree with you, people need to be paid what they are owed. However, it is pretty easy to see why people are so pissed off about compensation at financial institutions. Their greed, even in face of their abject failure, is pretty amazing.
No, he's saying that the government should have (and would have been within their rights to) stipulate exactly WHICH contractual obligations the money was meant to cover.
Let's say that you have a brother-in-law who is in a lot of debt. Two particular items of his debt are an overdue heating bill (he has no heat at home, as a result) and a rack of late fees at blockbuster (he is no longer allowed to rent videos there as a result).
If you give him money to pay off the heating bill, but he goes and clears his blockbuster debt instead, would you be happy with him? Would you lend him money again in the future?
No need for the analogies, I get that. That is the "government should have done their due diligence" part. At this point AIG doesn't have any legal standing not to pay the bonuses.
I tend to disagree.
If they allocate all of the money that they've been given by the government in such a way that there simply isn't enough for bonuses in the payroll budget, then they've effectively created the situation that the government SHOULD have put them in. Yes, it might result in them being sued over it, but I believe it is possible to severely reduce that risk of lawsuit, through promising to make it up to employees once the firm is back in a good position, as well as the fact that an employee who sues here is going to have a hard time finding future employment in the current economic climate.
"Thank you, thank you," he said. "We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right? Iceland, which is now green. Oh I love this. Like we know what this planet is all about. How long have we been here? How long? Not very long."
What the ....?
Greenland is called Greenland because the Vikings mere master bullshitters. And Iceland has been green (in the places where it is now) since it was settled. I mean, this is 4th grade history caliber stuff here.
Wait, seriously? He didn't know that? Oh dear god, why is this...you know what, no. I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that paragraph.
No, he's saying that the government should have (and would have been within their rights to) stipulate exactly WHICH contractual obligations the money was meant to cover.
Let's say that you have a brother-in-law who is in a lot of debt. Two particular items of his debt are an overdue heating bill (he has no heat at home, as a result) and a rack of late fees at blockbuster (he is no longer allowed to rent videos there as a result).
If you give him money to pay off the heating bill, but he goes and clears his blockbuster debt instead, would you be happy with him? Would you lend him money again in the future?
No need for the analogies, I get that. That is the "government should have done their due diligence" part. At this point AIG doesn't have any legal standing not to pay the bonuses.
I tend to disagree.
If they allocate all of the money that they've been given by the government in such a way that there simply isn't enough for bonuses in the payroll budget, then they've effectively created the situation that the government SHOULD have put them in. Yes, it might result in them being sued over it, but I believe it is possible to severely reduce that risk of lawsuit, through promising to make it up to employees once the firm is back in a good position, as well as the fact that an employee who sues here is going to have a hard time finding future employment in the current economic climate.
Eh, considering how many people in the financial industry tend to live bonus to bonus (there was a great NYTimes article about it recently) plus the uncertainty in when the economy is going to recover, I think that most of these employees would sue almost immediately. AIG would lose any such suit, incurring legal fees and damages on top of whatever they owed the employee.
It's better to bite the bullet, pay out the bonuses, and reform the system.
@Yar: I think you're deflating their base compensation. My friend is still a junior banker at one of the smaller firms on Wall Street and made $60,000 in base salary her first year on the job while receiving an $80,000 bonus at the end of her first year. That is not lower-middle class, not by a long-shot, particularly for a single person with no children (and it doesn't count all of the perks that came along with her job, like black car service and meals). $60,000 is a lot of money right out of college, with little work experience other than internships at financial institutions. It's hardly lower-middle class, even in NYC.
Really, people who make $60K need to be denied their bonuses?
No, people who fucked up need to be denied their bonuses.
Posts
These people helmed a sinking ship.
I don't think the capitalistic viewpoint is to reward failure.
After the ruling he should get the certificate, though, and be allowed to represent the state during the appeals process.
AIG is contractually obligated to pay bonuses. AIG has no money. Let them sue AIG for money they do not have. The government is not obligated to pay their bonuses, and had they put a clause in that this money can't be used for that, we would not be paying their bonuses.
Yar, there is over $150 million in bonuses going to derivatives traders. The only possible way they met specified performance goals is if those goals were laughably easy to achieve, making them virtually guaranteed income. It highlights the major flaws in compensation at financial institutions, where the traders had no reason to show any restraint because they would never eat any downside.
I agree that these bonuses probably have to be paid. But we shouldn't let a situation like this occur again because it flies in the face of any kind of logic.
Sanstodo, I agree. But, this is all grandstanding. Look at the similar shennanigans with Merrill.
Cuomo doesn't care about actually reviewing their compensation for malfeasance, he wants to exploit the current political climate to further the issue of executive pay to the public, with himself and others as the champions of good against evil corporate America. His using an obvious logical fallacy to avoid reasonable investigation into the matter in favor of publicity.
Again, all the money was used to fulfill contractual obligations. A whole lot more money (like 100 times more) went to fulfill contracts with foreign banks than did contracts with domestic employees. Your argument doesn't really hold much of anything. You're saying that AIG just shouldn't be paying money they owe their employees, because you want to continue to believe that there are villians there who deserve their punishment.
Additionally, an executive who gets too publically upset over not getting the bonus is not going to be looked on so highly by other potential employers in the financial sector, since they don't want to deal with an internal backlash if they go under, which pretty much everyone is at risk of right now, so there is incentive to keep tantrums to a minimum.
The entitlement culture in the financial industry has is pretty staggering.
Jsut because you make lots of money doesn't entitle you to always make lots of money. People in every sector getting laid off or getting pay freezes. There's nothing magical about being in finance that means you "have to" make x amount of dollars.
The world sucks sometimes and people get screwed over. So where do we draw the line? Anyone under 50k a year can't get a salary cut? 100K? A million?
They may have to be paid, but they don't have to be paid with government money.
You'd think she'd already be working on swaying people's opinions rather than holding off on that until 2010/11, but maybe that's expecting too much from her.
A fair number of people could default and still have this work, and we'd be buying them at a price below what these banks think are reasonable prices in the long term. If it went down in value, it would only go down by a marginal amount. If we take a share of real equity, there's no guarantee that the bank survives, and the troubled assets are still on the books. In that scenario, the banks could collapse and We the People would lose out on the vast majority or all of our original investment.
Well, we'll see.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/16/steeles-tour-de-force-com_n_175317.html
Keep talking Steele. WE LOVE YOU!
edit for lols.
Yeah that Roberto guy was a dick. Almost as bad as that Benito.
Norm Coleman.
Coleman, for his part, is denying for obvious reasons, using the phrase "when he returns to the United States Senate".
Aw, I was just coming to post that.
Only if those assets you're talking about buying turn out to be crap. We lose harder if we only get the bad.
EDIT: GOP!!!! see you guys in an economics thread in the future....
Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please pick Coleman. Please!
I will believe in God again if the GOP picks Coleman.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
You mean it wouldn't be the racist? Damn.
Yeah, I agree. Populist outrage might actually hurt the recovery because, like it or not, additional bailouts of financial institutions are going to be necessary. We haven't gotten anywhere near the bottom of this, considering the massive amount of toxic debt still gumming up the sheets of Citigroup, BofA, etc.
I think people have their hearts in the right place (this isn't FAIR!) but the sad truth is that it isn't fair but we have to live with that for now so we can fix what's broken to get our economy going again. We can save the grandstanding and arm waving for AFTER this is all over (and hopefully, we can change things so we don't have to do this again any time soon).
I actually don't mind the bailouts of the financial institutions so much. But I honestly can't stand that we're also bailing out the individuals who feel entitled to massive wealth regardless if they do well. Especially at AIG since the American taxpayers essentially own the company. If any of us were to fail miserably at our jobs and then gave our boss the finger and shat on his desk when he called us on it, we'd be fired. Why aren't these people?
That's so painful to hear.
But.. but they posted a profit! That means they are golden again right? Just pay no attention to the pile of MBSs behind the curtain.
No, he's saying that the government should have (and would have been within their rights to) stipulate exactly WHICH contractual obligations the money was meant to cover.
Let's say that you have a brother-in-law who is in a lot of debt. Two particular items of his debt are an overdue heating bill (he has no heat at home, as a result) and a rack of late fees at blockbuster (he is no longer allowed to rent videos there as a result).
If you give him money to pay off the heating bill, but he goes and clears his blockbuster debt instead, would you be happy with him? Would you lend him money again in the future?
What the ....?
Greenland is called Greenland because the Vikings mere master bullshitters. And Iceland has been green (in the places where it is now) since it was settled. I mean, this is 4th grade history caliber stuff here.
Yeah I guess I'm just looking for a little more detail and direction in people's wrath. The media likes to throw big numbers and weighted words at you, and I just am dumbfounded at the amount of rage that even the President himself seems to pretend at all this, without even knowing the specifics and the rationale.
The current CEO has only been there a few months, coming in after much of the bailout money, and he was put there by the government. He makes $1/year, and all the executives already voluntarily gave up all 2008 bonuses and 2009 raises. He is the one saying that these remaing bonuses to non-execs are owed and cannot be cancelled. We aren't talking about executives anymore. At some point you ahve to accept that in order to keep doing business, people have to be paid what they were told they'd be paid.
Wait, seriously? He didn't know that? Oh dear god, why is this...you know what, no. I'm just going to pretend I didn't read that paragraph.
I don't know how you separate a financial institution from its contracts, even if some of those contracts require it to pay out bonuses to individuals who fucked everything up. There's no way to do one without the other. We can't break these contracts because we don't like them or they're unfair. That's not how our system works (nor should it. Respecting contracts is essential to any economy).
To get this back on track: My issue with the GOP is that they have no ideas about how to get us out of this mess plus their resistance to regulation of any kind (other than of uteruses and marriage) prevents them from adding to the conversation of how to stop this from happening again. Plus, I've even heard Republicans talking about a spending freeze (wow, way to push the exact WRONG thing to do). It's pathetic.
I'm hoping for a Bloomberg party to take over where the GOP has fallen short, so we can have a reasonable discourse rather than shouting past each other.
Paying off financial obligations to another bank or business is not the same as paying off bonuses to people who work there. The government could have said "hey, you don't have any fucking money. Here is some money to pay off other banks and insure your shit so you don't go under", the government has no obligation give them any money, and they do not have to give them money to pay off employees that wouldn't even have a paycheck.
These people can then sue AIG. Maybe by the time the company turns around and makes a profit
Bailing out the banks is one thing if that money is used for items to prevent things for getting worse. IE money to cover the junk items, make loans, and pay of their debt to other banks. I don't think anybody is against that. But having the government pay the bonuses of private employees is not something we are obligated to do. This isn't punishing anybody.
If I scream and yell "I want 1 million dollars" and the government doesn't give me it, that's not a punishment. Because the government had no obligation to give that cash in the first place.
But we can make sure this doesn't happen again. The government knew this was going to happen, and yet did it anyway. Now we are all left holding the mess.
True ebnough
They contractually will have to pay the people their money. however saying it's "just how they do business" is silly. Maybe it's time they fundamentally reevaluated how they do business because their current model obviously sucks some serious cock.
Yar, I never said that she needed to be denied her bonus. I said that their salaries are not lower-middle class as you stated. In any case, $60k right out of college is pretty damn good. She makes considerably more than that now in base salary (her bank isn't paying out bonuses this year) but is still complaining horribly. I have little sympathy, considering that she A) still has a job,
I agree with you, people need to be paid what they are owed. However, it is pretty easy to see why people are so pissed off about compensation at financial institutions. Their greed, even in face of their abject failure, is pretty amazing.
I tend to disagree.
If they allocate all of the money that they've been given by the government in such a way that there simply isn't enough for bonuses in the payroll budget, then they've effectively created the situation that the government SHOULD have put them in. Yes, it might result in them being sued over it, but I believe it is possible to severely reduce that risk of lawsuit, through promising to make it up to employees once the firm is back in a good position, as well as the fact that an employee who sues here is going to have a hard time finding future employment in the current economic climate.
Steele is a moron, more news at 10!
Eh, considering how many people in the financial industry tend to live bonus to bonus (there was a great NYTimes article about it recently) plus the uncertainty in when the economy is going to recover, I think that most of these employees would sue almost immediately. AIG would lose any such suit, incurring legal fees and damages on top of whatever they owed the employee.
It's better to bite the bullet, pay out the bonuses, and reform the system.
The Financial Products division at AIG. AKA the ones who lost all their money and bankrupted them.
These people shouldn't have jobs, much less 450 million in bonuses!