RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit!

RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Archer -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 1:13:30 PM)
Unless you have some proof that DeSantis was in fact culpable for the wrong doing you are just slinging unfounded accusations at the man. Now if you actually read the letter it says (paragraph 2 line 1) he was VP in the commodity and equity divisions within Financial Products. But as was said earlier lets not let the facts get in the way of a good lynching. Commodities and Equity, any of those links you toss cite any part of the problem came from those divisions???????? Another set of knee jerk reactions made without proper reading/ research, because we need to lynch someone quickly so the anger doesn't end up back on Congress for moving too quickly and Obama not reading the bill before signing it. (We had to move quickly so we did a sloppy job so we need to keep the focus on someone else.) To those who want to accuse the man of not actually working hard, again unless you have something that shows directly that MR DeSantis was one of those lazy bastards that doesn't do anything for his money, you're again accusing with NO PROOF. What happened to innocent until proven guilty.

rulemylife -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 1:20:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun I for one never claimed them to be sacrosanct. If both parties want to renegotiate the contracts, let 'em. That's a far cry from us declarng "OMG, they got paid for their work, and they wouldn't have without the bailout so take the money away!" Well, legal ramifications aside, the last part of your statement, that they wouldn't have received them without the bailout is reality.

rulemylife -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 1:23:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Unless you have some proof that DeSantis was in fact culpable for the wrong doing you are just slinging unfounded accusations at the man. Now if you actually read the letter it says (paragraph 2 line 1) he was VP in the commodity and equity divisions within Financial Products. But as was said earlier lets not let the facts get in the way of a good lynching. Commodities and Equity, any of those links you toss cite any part of the problem came from those divisions???????? Another set of knee jerk reactions made without proper reading/ research, because we need to lynch someone quickly so the anger doesn't end up back on Congress for moving too quickly and Obama not reading the bill before signing it. (We had to move quickly so we did a sloppy job so we need to keep the focus on someone else.) To those who want to accuse the man of not actually working hard, again unless you have something that shows directly that MR DeSantis was one of those lazy bastards that doesn't do anything for his money, you're again accusing with NO PROOF. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Was this directed at me? Because I've never even mentioned the man.

Raiikun -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 1:24:39 PM)
I never claimed otherwise. But since they did recieve such a loan to keep from going bankrupt...it seems they should meet their financial obligations as they try and turn things around to pay back the loan. Paying your employees what you agreed to pay them is a financial obligation, and a necessary one if you want to keep the employees long enough to repay our investment.

Archer -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 1:40:50 PM)
General post direction I wasn't going to go back and select the appropriate people, (the old "Fast Reply" strikes again)

rulemylife -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 1:42:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer General post direction I wasn't going to go back and select the appropriate people, (the old "Fast Reply" strikes again) OK

rulemylife -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 1:50:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun I never claimed otherwise. But since they did recieve such a loan to keep from going bankrupt...it seems they should meet their financial obligations as they try and turn things around to pay back the loan. Paying your employees what you agreed to pay them is a financial obligation, and a necessary one if you want to keep the employees long enough to repay our investment. No kidding? Tell that to the auto workers. Let the airline employees that lost 40-50% of their pay as well as pensions and benefits know about it. I'm sure they will be thrilled to hear it.

SilverMark -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 1:55:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Simple rule....read the first sentence....If the letter is true....I have yet to bash anyone for making a living and do not take shots at the UAW anymore than I have this guy....I wish it were as simple as people keep repeating, first and foremost, to void contractual obligations is indeed a dangerous precedent. Secondly, if the gentleman performed to his bonus, and the company doesn't file bankruptcy, he earned it. No, I know you don't take shots at the UAW. I was only using it as an example that contracts have been re-worked in the past to help struggling companies. The airlines and the concessions by their unions are another example. But somehow, in this case, we want to believe that these bonuses are sacrosanct. Believe me, My first reaction to all of this was as "knee jerk" as I was able to muster but, once I started to look at the ramifications of the issues involved I saw it differently. It has little to do with the person involved and more to do with the contractual obligations and what takes place when we bypass the rule of law. If congress passes the punitive tax or if the contractual obligations are usurped we all lose. As liberal as I am, our liberties and legal standing can be broached when we throw the baby out with the bathwater in the name of what is perceived as right as opposed to what we know is right.

Raiikun -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 2:03:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Simple rule....read the first sentence....If the letter is true....I have yet to bash anyone for making a living and do not take shots at the UAW anymore than I have this guy....I wish it were as simple as people keep repeating, first and foremost, to void contractual obligations is indeed a dangerous precedent. Secondly, if the gentleman performed to his bonus, and the company doesn't file bankruptcy, he earned it. No, I know you don't take shots at the UAW. I was only using it as an example that contracts have been re-worked in the past to help struggling companies. The airlines and the concessions by their unions are another example. But somehow, in this case, we want to believe that these bonuses are sacrosanct. Believe me, My first reaction to all of this was as "knee jerk" as I was able to muster but, once I started to look at the ramifications of the issues involved I saw it differently. It has little to do with the person involved and more to do with the contractual obligations and what takes place when we bypass the rule of law. If congress passes the punitive tax or if the contractual obligations are usurped we all lose. As liberal as I am, our liberties and legal standing can be broached when we throw the baby out with the bathwater in the name of what is perceived as right as opposed to what we know is right. Well said. I had the same reaction at first, after all the other abuses of bailout money we'd been hearing, I thought this AIG instance was just more of the same. But then the more I looked into it and saw the facts, it didn't take too long to realize that any outrage over the situation should be directed at the people that screwed things up...not at the people that just did their jobs well and got paid for it.

MrRodgers -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 2:33:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Unless you have some proof that DeSantis was in fact culpable for the wrong doing you are just slinging unfounded accusations at the man. Now if you actually read the letter it says (paragraph 2 line 1) he was VP in the commodity and equity divisions within Financial Products. But as was said earlier lets not let the facts get in the way of a good lynching. Commodities and Equity, any of those links you toss cite any part of the problem came from those divisions???????? Another set of knee jerk reactions made without proper reading/ research, because we need to lynch someone quickly so the anger doesn't end up back on Congress for moving too quickly and Obama not reading the bill before signing it. (We had to move quickly so we did a sloppy job so we need to keep the focus on someone else.) To those who want to accuse the man of not actually working hard, again unless you have something that shows directly that MR DeSantis was one of those lazy bastards that doesn't do anything for his money, you're again accusing with NO PROOF. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Hardly knee jerk at all. He was a VP at AIGFP and I'll need substantial convincing that those 'commodities and equity' div. was NOT part of FP div. and in any way, under his command and involved in the insuring and trading of bad paper. Second the whole problem in the capitalist world of murky paper is that the words they use changes the name so few actually even understand them and more importantly...the real risks. I have little concern for such details unless these people do go to court (isn't going to happen) and were adjudicated. Third, could you actually see a bankruptcy judge telling principals "Let's see, lost over $61 billion in the last qtr., the largest corporate loss in history, your co. is broke and looking to have a long line of creditors seeking payback. Oh but first...here's $170 billion for your get-out-of-bankruptcy free card and that includes a tidy $165 million in bonuses from the taxpayers so you'all will hang out and help us clean up this mess. AIG HAS NO CLOTHES we bought control, 80% of shares so what...the taxpayers are now obligated to pay a bonus because AIG didn't go bankrupt but ONLY for the taxpayer money in the first place. How do I get in on this ? This is the single most successful racket ever devised. Get the taxpayers to save me from bankruptcy and because of that are now OBLIGATED to give me a big bonus.

rulemylife -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 2:51:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark ]Believe me, My first reaction to all of this was as "knee jerk" as I was able to muster but, once I started to look at the ramifications of the issues involved I saw it differently. It has little to do with the person involved and more to do with the contractual obligations and what takes place when we bypass the rule of law. If congress passes the punitive tax or if the contractual obligations are usurped we all lose. As liberal as I am, our liberties and legal standing can be broached when we throw the baby out with the bathwater in the name of what is perceived as right as opposed to what we know is right. Then elaborate. I mean seriously, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I do not see the differences. The automakers and the airlines both had contractual obligations they worked around to keep solvent. Why is this any different? If this ends up in court I think a very strong argument can be made that these contracts were void because AIG would have gone into bankruptcy without the government's support.

MrRodgers -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 3:15:43 PM)
Please kinkroids, we have selective taxes all over the tax code. Why do you think it is some 20,000 pages long ? It is singularly the highest selling item on the congressional retail shelf. If the tax code can describe income as one thing and tax it at 15% and call income also another thing and tax it upto 35%, we can do anything as long as it is in the future and that's even though congress passes retroactive tax cuts all of the time. They also pass future business tax deductions. As long as the bonuses are taxed as 2009 income under the 2009 code, it is as constitutional (legal and moral) as probably 100's of variations in the code.

samboct -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 3:31:29 PM)
"Once again, you're assuming DeSantis and others were the one responsible for the mess, when that's not the case. The ones responsible were a small part of a division DeSantis had nothing to do. Back to the NBC example above, it's as if you're wanting to punish Jay Leno because Chuck and Heroes was failing." Sorry- but sheltering under a corporate umbrella doesn't save you from getting wet all the time. If you're going to be an independent businessman, then you have no culpability whatsoever for what people outside your corporation do. If Leno wants, he can set up his own network if he's not getting anything from NBC. It's a free country- well , sort of if you don't look too close. If you're going to be identified as part of a corporation and you derive benefit from that (to whit-an absurdly fat paycheck where the idea that you "earned" it is ludicrous) then you take a measure of responsibility for other people's actions in the corporation. Same as a member of a baseball team or any other collective group. Sam

MrRodgers -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 3:35:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark ]Believe me, My first reaction to all of this was as "knee jerk" as I was able to muster but, once I started to look at the ramifications of the issues involved I saw it differently. It has little to do with the person involved and more to do with the contractual obligations and what takes place when we bypass the rule of law. If congress passes the punitive tax or if the contractual obligations are usurped we all lose. As liberal as I am, our liberties and legal standing can be broached when we throw the baby out with the bathwater in the name of what is perceived as right as opposed to what we know is right. Then elaborate. I mean seriously, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I do not see the differences. The automakers and the airlines both had contractual obligations they worked around to keep solvent. Why is this any different? If this ends up in court I think a very strong argument can be made that these contracts were void because AIG would have gone into bankruptcy without the government's support. You've got it and what is very revealing is that in general, I have seen more people support bonuses for the very people who got us in this mess and are at least partially responsible for a large drop in auto sales...yet don't feel the same about auto co. obligations to the union contracts and despite the outlandish difference. Wouldn't the auto workers love to take a buyout of say...a few hundred thou...?

rulemylife -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 3:40:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers If the tax code can describe income as one thing and tax it at 15% and call income also another thing and tax it upto 35%, we can do anything as long as it is in the future and that's even though congress passes retroactive tax cuts all of the time. They also pass future business tax deductions. We see all kinds of hand-wringing by the press and the politicians about the lack of savings in this country but we tax the interest on those savings as personal income while capital gains are taxed roughly half that rate.

Kirata -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 6:12:35 PM)
~Fast Reply~ The Real AIG Conspiracy 1. Treasury Secretary Paulson, from Goldman Sachs, decided to give AIG ~$183 BILLION DOLLARS 2. The money was disbursed to pay off AIG's undisclosed "creditors". 3. The largest of these turns out to be Goldman Sachs, which got $13 BILLION DOLLARS 4. The bonuses given to people who actually worked for it amounted to about 1/1000 of what was given AIG 5. The rest of the $183 BILLION DOLLARS was used to pay off the casino's high rollers Keep watching my left hand closely, observe that I have no bonus in it... do not take your eyes off my left hand K.

HorseMann -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/26/2009 10:32:47 PM)
More

SilverMark -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/27/2009 2:45:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark ]Believe me, My first reaction to all of this was as "knee jerk" as I was able to muster but, once I started to look at the ramifications of the issues involved I saw it differently. It has little to do with the person involved and more to do with the contractual obligations and what takes place when we bypass the rule of law. If congress passes the punitive tax or if the contractual obligations are usurped we all lose. As liberal as I am, our liberties and legal standing can be broached when we throw the baby out with the bathwater in the name of what is perceived as right as opposed to what we know is right. Then elaborate. I mean seriously, I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I do not see the differences. The automakers and the airlines both had contractual obligations they worked around to keep solvent. Why is this any different? If this ends up in court I think a very strong argument can be made that these contracts were void because AIG would have gone into bankruptcy without the government's support. I never made the argument that there is any difference...Courts do not make decisions based on supposition. The autoworkers have their collective bargaining agreement to protect their rights and to my knowledge as of now, there have been no cuts. If they are asked to do so, and vote to do so, it is their choice. I find the AIG mess to be as distasteful and unfair as the next person but, contracts, short of bankruptcy are still legally binding.

HeavansKeeper -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/27/2009 2:52:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 These "bailouts" are just keeping wealthy people wealthy. (They) have better access to our government than do the rest of us. I don't want to pay for this shit, do you? I want to see these crooks in jail. Many of them have done nothing wrong. Making money is not a crime. Neither is a woman cheating on her boyfriend, but it tends to leave a sour taste in the mouth. I'm not complaining business is immoral. I am complaining that certain loopholes allowed the largest bank robbery in the history of the universe to occur. Money is not created or destroyed. (Technically... It can be created via loans, but that's not the issue). It cannot be destroyed, only moved. Where did it move to? Who made $780,000,000,000? Also, can I ride your spaceship please, sir?

Raiikun -> RE: Dear AIG, .... I quit! (3/27/2009 5:42:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Hardly knee jerk at all. He was a VP at AIGFP and I'll need substantial convincing that those 'commodities and equity' div. was NOT part of FP div. and in any way, under his command and involved in the insuring and trading of bad paper. Well other than your "Guilty untili proven innocent" stance...I don't understand what you're trying to ask for. The letter says that DeSantis was part of the "commodities and equity" division of Financial Products...so why are you asking for substantial convincing that it wasn't part of FP? The CDSs that hamstrung AIG was done in a London office of Financial Products (as per a link you provided), apparently a seperate division than the "Commodities and Equity" division of AIG-FP. Once again, without any proof that DeSantis was culpable for any part of the CDS fiasco, you're just flinging unfounded accusations. And so far, what evidence we do have suggests he (and the other bonus recipients) had nothing to do with the CDS thing. The CEO of AIG testified before Congress that the people who were involved with the CDS thing were already gone from AIG and recieved no bonuses.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875