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!"

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

General post direction I wasn't going to go back and select the appropriate people, (the old "Fast Reply" strikes again) 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.