18 Mar 09
2 edits
Much is being made of the AIG bonuses it seems that the Congress is
upset, that AIG in order to keep employees in that troubled company
have 200 million or there about legally and by contract have bonus to
give to those employees. That does not trouble me in the least,
people contractually were to get those bonuses so they should,
Congress could have block those before hand when they gave away
tax payer money, they didn’t do due diligence before giving away
hundreds of billions of dollars. What I want to know is why isn’t there a
huge cry over the 2.8 percent raise of $4,700 a year with most salaries
being around $174,000 a year that Congress is getting? After all when
you look at the Fanny and Freddy it wasn’t the people in the market
that really screwed up the system, it was Congress forcing their rules
on companies that caused this mess. They removed the barriers,
forced people into making bad loans, and now are acting like their
hands are clean of all guilt. Personally, I think they more they cry over
AIG, the more they need to be looked at, what else has Congress
done?
Kelly
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayHere is a bit I read recently. Seems (as you said) your Congress is more than an observer from the beginning of the entire world-wide mess.
Much is being made of the AIG bonuses it seems that the Congress is
upset, that AIG in order to keep employees in that troubled company
have 200 million or there about legally and by contract have bonus to
give to those employees. That does not trouble me in the least,
people contractually were to get those bonuses so they should,
Congress could have b ...[text shortened]... ore they cry over
AIG, the more they need to be looked at, what else has Congress
done?
Kelly
“Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group bonus recipients so the government could recoup the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.”
“While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, it was Sen. Chris Dodd who unexpectedly added an executive-compensation exemption to the bill. That amendment provides an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009," which enables the AIG bonuses and makes them payable using taxpayer funds. The amendment is in the final version and is law.”
“Now - after public outcry to these bonuses - the same Sen. Chris Dodd wants to tax AIG retention bonuses at 90%. Why did Dodd add 'an exception for contractually obligated bonuses' into the stimulus bill in the first place? When his “connections with AIG are examined it becomes clearer. Once again, we have the real architects of this disaster acting like innocent bystanders who had no idea this was coming when public scrutiny is focused.”
“Perhaps the answer for Sen. Dodd’s’ schizophrenia is here:”
Sen. Dodd was AIG's largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.
One of AIG Financial Products' largest offices is based in Connecticut.
18 Mar 09
1 edit
I suppose it has never occurred to you right wingers to ask the question why is a company that has bankrupted itself giving huge bonuses to the idiots who were in charge of destroying the company? After all, you are constantly complaining about raising taxes on the wealthy because they're sooooooooooooooo "productive". What did the clowns at AIG produce?
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayWho do you think owns AIG now?
Much is being made of the AIG bonuses it seems that the Congress is
upset, that AIG in order to keep employees in that troubled company
have 200 million or there about legally and by contract have bonus to
give to those employees. That does not trouble me in the least,
people contractually were to get those bonuses so they should,
Congress could have b ...[text shortened]... ore they cry over
AIG, the more they need to be looked at, what else has Congress
done?
Kelly
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause they did a great job for the people who are screwing us over.
I suppose it has never occurred to you right wingers to ask the question why is a company that has bankrupted itself giving huge bonuses to the idiots who were in charge of destroying the company? After all, you are constantly complaining about raising taxes on the wealthy because they're sooooooooooooooo "productive". What did the clowns at AIG produce?
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThey're probably too busy asking the question why the government would give a company that bankrupted itself tax payer money without ensuring that it wouldn't be used for such bonuses in the first place.
I suppose it has never occurred to you right wingers to ask the question why is a company that has bankrupted itself giving huge bonuses to the idiots who were in charge of destroying the company? After all, you are constantly complaining about raising taxes on the wealthy because they're sooooooooooooooo "productive". What did the clowns at AIG produce?
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by FleabittenYes, right wingers are often concerned abour rich people getting money they don't deserve or need.
They're probably too busy asking the question why the government would give a company that bankrupted itself tax payer money without ensuring that it wouldn't be used for such bonuses in the first place.
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThe establishment uses the left and the right. It divides people so they criticize each other instead of placing blame on both parties.
Yes, right wingers are often concerned abour rich people getting money they don't deserve or need.
Divide and conquer. It works well.
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderExcellent non-sequitir. The bottom line is that the government dropped the ball by not attaching stipulations as to how the money could or could not be used before handing it over.
Yes, right wingers are often concerned abour rich people getting money they don't deserve or need.
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by FleabittenExactly right, just like the tarp funds. The government didn't spend enough time examining this stuff and then something like this happens and they throw a fit. It's their fault in the first place. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see politicians step up and own their mistakes?
Excellent non-sequitir. The bottom line is that the government dropped the ball by not attaching stipulations as to how the money could or could not be used before handing it over.
18 Mar 09
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are a perfect example of brain dead, you want to turn this into
I suppose it has never occurred to you right wingers to ask the question why is a company that has bankrupted itself giving huge bonuses to the idiots who were in charge of destroying the company? After all, you are constantly complaining about raising taxes on the wealthy because they're sooooooooooooooo "productive". What did the clowns at AIG produce?
a right or left wing thing! I don't care what side of the isle those bumbs
are on, they gave away billions of dollars without doing what it took to
make sure the money was spent or given away well. The left or right
are just two sides to the same damn coin in my opinion.
Kelly
18 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainExactly!
The establishment uses the left and the right. It divides people so they criticize each other instead of placing blame on both parties.
Divide and conquer. It works well.
In order to exercise control over the voter, politicians have created terms, “sub-titles”, to mask their true affiliation, i.e.: Labor, Conservative, Democrat, Socialist, Liberal, Republican, Libertarian, etc.
The purpose of this ruse is to provide emotional vehicles into which voters will DIVIDE THEMSELVES, creating opposing camps that politicians then manipulate with rhetoric. Much as a herdsman creates pens to divide the flock, making the task of control simpler as opposed to manipulating the entire herd in mass.
By accomplishing this, politicians foil the ability of voters to form majorities large enough to defeat the politician’s control. In order to avoid this trap, the voter must ignore the contrived “sub-titles” in order to avoid 'grouping' themselves.
