TroyinEwa/Perv Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Sorry Mekong......I know you hate U.S. stories but this one just pisses me off.......I don't know what's worse......they are getting bailout money and paying bonuses to execs to stay or they are getting bailout money to pay execs to stay and then they leave and don't give it back. Un-fucking-believable!!! Eleven executives at AIG quit the troubled insurance giant despite being paid bonuses of at least a million dollars each to stay, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday. "Eleven of the individuals who received 'retention' bonuses of one million dollars or more are no longer working at AIG, including one who received 4.6 million dollars,'' Cuomo said in a letter to Barney Frank, chairman of the financial services committee in the US House of Representatives. The news undermined the argument of government-appointed AIG boss Edward Liddy that the bonuses were necessary to retain "the best and brightest talent.'' "Given the trillion-dollar portfolio at AIG Financial Products, retaining key traders and risk managers is critical to our goal of repayment,'' he wrote in a letter Saturday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Cuomo said that AIG had paid out more than 160 million dollars in bonuses to employees at AIG's Financial Products Subsidiary, the branch at the heart of the company's near collapse. A total of 73 employees received a million dollars or more, while the top seven received more than four million dollars each, Cuomo said. "Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing a taxpayer bailout. Something is deeply wrong with this outcome. I hope the Committee will address it head on,'' Cuomo wrote. Robbery of the American taxpayers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Hi, Un-fucking-believe sums it up. I am convinced all of these bonuses are awarded by the same people who expect similar bonuses in return. All part of the 'good old boys' network If you are poor / low-level (in the company) and you fuck up you get fired and told to go fuck off. If on the other hand you are rich / high-level and you fuck up, you get a massive golden parachute. Something is seriously wrong with that picture. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 What is worse is that the US gov hands out the cash with no oversight, no conditions, no penalties....WTF!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 The lame part is, the excuse is "...these bonuses were contractual so we had to give them...if we didn't we'd have no credibility with our staff..." All the shit I lost was also contractual, ment nothing to our management... the other excuse is "...we have to pay bonuses to retain people to run the company..." yeah what? the same assholes who fucked it all up? A reward for a job poorly done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 There's enough people pissed off about this, on all sides of the political spectrum, that I hope members of congress go through with the proposal to tax at 100% these bonuses. Its not as if the very upper management, which has been replaced since September, are buddies with these "best and brightest dirivity (sp)traders." Management should have told them "if you want your contractually obligated bonuses, sue us!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 That is all well and good. But the unfortunate part is that the recipients would probably win in court...and, as I understand it, Connecticut law provides for a substantial penalty for failure to perform as provided contractually (like twice the mount deemed obligated). HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Funny how GOPers feel AIG contracts are sacrosanct, but union employee contracts are always able to be broken by the big corps. I'm just sayin'... Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Central Scrutinizer Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Funny how GOPers feel AIG contracts are sacrosanct, but union employee contracts are always able to be broken by the big corps. I'm just sayin'... Cheers, SD How true. What's good for the goose is never seen as good for the gander. But you know only when the rich spend money is it good for the economy. Millions of little people spending their small dollars don't mean squat 'ey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Wasn't it GWB that gave AIG its first bailout? Wasn't it GWB that started the whole bailout business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Funny how GOPers feel AIG contracts are sacrosanct' date=' but union employee contracts are always able to be broken by the big corps. I'm just sayin'... Cheers, SD[/quote'] How true. What's good for the goose is never seen as good for the gander. But you know only when the rich spend money is it good for the economy. Millions of little people spending their small dollars don't mean squat 'ey? Hey girls, hate to interrupt your little "circle jerk" here. But I think you'll find that the "GOPers" have opened fire on the Demoncrats on this issue. As you can't seem to be able to find various news sources for your incredulously ill-informed opinions, let me make it simple: The Secretary of The Treasury is a former NY financial guru; Dodd is the biggest recipent of AIG lobby bribes, and Obama, in his short federal career, is the second largest; remember the children's workbooks that had "dot-to-dot" drawings? Get out your crayons. :content: SD, in particular, you continue to display an inability to draw a distinction between supporting a position and possessing the ability to predict a consequence of an action or inaction. Feel free to PM me for guidance so as not to embarass yourself further in an open-board discussion. Okay, lesson over. You guys can get back to and spunking-up your monitors. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.