Originally posted by scherzoThe French do this all the time. This is nothing new.
But taking your employers hostage?
I remember a case in the 1980s, I think, where bank workers held their entire senior management in the head office for weeks when they were there for a meeting.
They kept the bank open and functioning. All of which shows how useful these executive types are.
Originally posted by RedmikeI didn't know it's been going on for that long!
The French do this all the time. This is nothing new.
I remember a case in the 1980s, I think, where bank workers held their entire senior management in the head office for weeks when they were there for a meeting.
They kept the bank open and functioning. All of which shows how useful these executive types are.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat they did was wrong (not to say incredibly moronic).
Yes, those poor AIG people who got $165 million in bonuses for destroying a company so badly that they had to come with their tin cup in hand to all of us. How they have suffered!
However, that doesn't mean we should all just give up on capitalism.
Some of those people are crooks though.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou're (apparently) upper class, would you like to be heavily taxed?
As for the OP: does the Economist actually have a reason to believe taxing the rich more heavily is bad for the economy, other than 19th century economic dogma?
Or do you think you own something to society just like housewifes do (according to you)?
Originally posted by no1marauderAIG employees got bonus' that were due them due to a contract that
Yes, those poor AIG people who got $165 million in bonuses for destroying a company so badly that they had to come with their tin cup in hand to all of us. How they have suffered!
they and their employer agreed too; moreover, before they got those
bonus' Congress had time to review the bonuses as they set up their
bail out bill that included in it AIG employee's getting their bonuses,
and the President signed the bill with all of that in it into law.
So after the fact, after a contract was signed, after Congress agreed to
let them have it, after the President signed the bill which gave them
the bonus's, both Congress and the President go after those guys as if
the AIG employees broke the law to get that money back! Why wait
it was in their power before that bill was signed to do something about
it, instead those guys were treated as if they broke the law, when it was
the law that gave them the bonuses.
Now you may feel contracts between an employer and employees is
something as worthless just a piece of paper that can be changed on a
whim, you may feel like when Congress and the President sign a bill
into law that too is meaningless and on the whim that can be changed,
you may feel like employees who get paid according to the contracts
they sign are now breaking the law when they get the money, but I
don't.
For me had AIG not wanted them to have those bonuses they didn't
have to offer them, had Congress not wanted the AIG employees
contracts honored they should not have passed the bill, had the
President not wanted those people to have their bonuses he should
not have signed that bill! It doesn’t matter how good they did their
job, as far as I know they either did a great job or bad one, it was
not part of the contract or agreement. What was the agreement was
those people should have gotten their bonuses, and they should not
have been attacked by our government when they got them.
What they got was demonized, by our government who went after
a small group of people to punish them for something they had in
their power to stop had they simply actually read the bill they were
working on or signing, had they just done due diligence by doing
the job we elected them to do this would have been a mute point.
Kelly
Originally posted by StTitoYou need to actually read what happened with Regan the taxes were
Let's see in recent memory Regan did it and we had the fabled reganomic era oh right and that ended with S&L scandals and a horrible recession. then Clinton made us a surplus... then Bush Jr tried it again and oh yeah that was just craptacular!
cut, but the govenment took in more money, Congress on the other
had spent it like crazy, but nothing compared to what we have just
seen happen when our country is in worse shape.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are misinformed as usual. No one was treated as if they broke any law; they were treated like the greedy, incompetent scumbags that they were. Nor were legal remedies lacking to avoid paying the bonuses under THE LAW (something you are grievously wrong about). Here's an article spelling out some options that your right wing sources probably didn't tell you about. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/aig.contracts/
AIG employees got bonus' that were due them due to a contract that
they and their employer agreed too; moreover, before they got those
bonus' Congress had time to review the bonuses as they set up their
bail out bill that included in it AIG employee's getting their bonuses,
and the President signed the bill with all of that in it into law.
So after t iligence by doing
the job we elected them to do this would have been a mute point.
Kelly
Actually the bailout of AIG was started by the Fed, not Congress. And AIG, far from offering full disclosure, still hasn't even identified (to the government that has floated them $170 billion) which employees have been given the bonuses. Your fairy tale that Congress knew all about these retention payments and went ahead with the bailout anyway is the purest of BS. AIG went whining to the government saying it needed an immediate infusion of tons of cash to save its business which, if it failed, would have terrible repercussions because then they couldn't honor THEIR contracts (you know how contracts are always sacred) insuring a crap load of basically worthless securities held by banks and financial firms.
So your "due diligence" argument is BS. Without our money, AIG wouldn't be able to honor ANY of their contracts AND contracts are routinely altered in bankruptcy (that's a LAW). The incredible arrogance of rich SOBs, who run their company into bankruptcy, which they avoided only because of a government handout, and then expect to be paid millions of dollars apiece as "retention payments" (after all what would the company do without their invaluable services? Go bankrupt? Wait a minute ..............) is on display for all to see. And when the people are righteously outraged about this, we have right wing nuts defending the "sacredness of contracts" and bashing the government for trying to stop this immoral theft of the public's money.
Incredible.
These idiots deserve a date with the guillotine, not a "retention payment".
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoOH....Those poor, misunderstood rich people with there tax loopholes big enough to drive an oceanliner through. Boo hoo hoo!! I feel so sorry for these poor misunderstood troopers. Those mean old working people are making such unfair demands as accountability, paying ones fair share in taxes, and maybe even (dare I say it...) some productive work now and then!! Boo hoo hoo...sniff sniff. There... there... it will be alright. Just sell one of those private jets, and transfer a few assets offshore so there not as visible, and everything will be alright. We'll make everything better...just get ready for that tax deductible 6 week vacation to Monte Carlo. I hear the wine tasting is splended this year, and the cavier is to die for. When we return we can off shore some more jobs to China....just to show the little people who's really in charge. Tell the butler to pack my 6 diamond bracelets! LIFE...IS UNBEARABLE!!:'(
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13405314
[b]Going for the bankers is tempting for politicians—and dangerous for everybody else
STONES thrown through a banker’s windows in Edinburgh, workers “bossnapping” executives in France, retrospective 90% tax rates proposed in Washington, and now a riot in London as G20 leaders ...[text shortened]... an easy target. But when you try to bash them, you usually end up punching yourself in the nose.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderI said Congress agreed to let them have it, they didn't read the
You are misinformed as usual. No one was treated as if they broke any law; they were treated like the greedy, incompetent scumbags that they were. Nor were legal remedies lacking to avoid paying the bonuses under THE LAW (something you are grievously wrong about). Here's an article spelling out some options that your right wing sources probably didn't te ...[text shortened]... These idiots deserve a date with the guillotine, not a "retention payment".
bill, but they sure signed off on it as did the President. AIG employees
were under attack, the President and others declared they were getting
that money back, again as if they didn't sign something days before
that GAVE THEM THE BONUSES! It doesn't have anything to do with
how greedy they were/are or how good or bad the job was they were
doing! It had to do with who signed off on it when! There is also
evidence that shows many within the government knew about it too,
but signed off anyway. I agree they should not have been given the
bonuses if they did a bad job, but after the fact once the deal was
done it was done. It was Congress and the President that were at
fault, for not knowing what was in that bill as they were signing it!
Kelly
Originally posted by generalissimoDo you feel better now, having served up your McDissertation?
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13405314
[b]Going for the bankers is tempting for politicians—and dangerous for everybody else
STONES thrown through a banker’s windows in Edinburgh, workers “bossnapping” executives in France, retrospective 90% tax rates proposed in Washington, and now a riot in London as G20 leaders ...[text shortened]... an easy target. But when you try to bash them, you usually end up punching yourself in the nose.[/b]