It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AIG bonus return pledge goes mostly unfulfilled

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

AIG bonus return pledge goes mostly unfulfilled


www.msnbc.msn.com

New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo threatened to publicize the recipients' names, prompting executives at AIG Financial Products to hastily agree to return about $45 million in bonuses by the end of the year.

But as the final days of 2009 tick away, a majority of that money remains unpaid. Only about $19 million has been given back, according to a report by the special inspector general for the government's bailout program.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Hear is yet another example of the rich robbing the poor. When this news first broke I remember hearing that many of the recipients of the bonuses were refusing to even take the bonus checks. hear it says that of the one hundred sixty five million, forty five million was agreed to be given back, and the rich people who got the decided to just throw nineteen million to the pathetic little rats scraping for food every day. Maby they will send Obama a Christmas card to say thank you.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


I say, lets grab the old torches and pitchforks and give those AIG a-holes the Frankenstein treatment!


2nd line



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


FortAnthem
I will not condone or try to entice any sort of violence, however I do fear that what you described, just might happen some time.
Then again looking back, I wonder if it would change any thing?



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


My comment was made in jest.

Still you have to admit, angry mobs do tend to get results.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


FortAnthem
yes angry mobs do get results. But there results are against one person or a small group of people. To actually change the system the angry mob would have to strike many different targets.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
My whole thing is where does government get off tell you how much you can earn or get for a bonus. We all see them doing it to the fat-cats and the grossly over paid in our eyes. That is just the first step. What happens when we the common folk start having the government tell us what we can and cannot make and earn. This is a slippery slop that they are entering and we are allowing in the name of fairness. I say government needs to keep their noses out of the private sector, for this little breach can turn in to total control and 1984 or Escape from LA or Demolition Man types of futures can be in stored for us.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by RedGolem
 


Yeah, any angry mob results wouldn't be too lasting, especially after the law cracks down.

I just hope those AIG clowns have to sleep with one eye open from now on...



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
We already know they started to carry guns because they worried for their safety. This is a good reason why.

I don't see how the US will be able to continue at this pace without some type of internal conflict between the classes.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bigvig316
 


I agree with what you said, govt shouldn't have a say in dictating employee compensation.

However, in this case, AIG is only still in business because OUR TAX MONEY BAILED THEM OUT.

It is unconscionable that they should take the American's tax money and then use it to pay off bonuses to the very people who caused the economic collapse in the 1st place.

edit to fix spellin

[edit on 23-12-2009 by FortAnthem]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
It is because the government does not want this to go to court. The politicians got their sound bites and quotes but do not want the negative publicity when the Court tells them that they haven't got a leg to stand on.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigvig316
My whole thing is where does government get off tell you how much you can earn or get for a bonus.


Bigvig
Under normal circumstances you would be right. However, this AIG situation is so hotly debated because we are dealing with tax payer dollars. If AIG did not take government money, we would not be having this conversation. That is the difference.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by whoshotJR


I don't see how the US will be able to continue at this pace without some type of internal conflict between the classes.


The old saying goes, you are your own worst enemy. In this case the government is making the people there own worst enemy. If they did not take government hand out no one would care to much about the boniness. So if a class war starts, the chief reason will be because of government hand outs to the rich.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
The problem with AIG is that the bonuses were not performance bonuses. These were contractual obligations to people who were necessary to aid in the restructuring of the company. These bonuses were included in the bailout agreement. It was only when the media got wind of it, that the Politicians started screaming bloody murder. As I said, they do not want this to go to court.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
The idea that there are bonuses period for a job in which one recieves a slary is rediculous. You do your job and take your money this whole 'bonus' stuff is asinine. If you need a huge monetary incentive to do the job to the best of your ability then you shouldn't have the job in the first place. I can't stand this type of greed or even the fact that businesses have to offer bonuses in the first place. despicable.



posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Hear is some new information


American International Group Inc investigated five executives who threatened to resign over federal pay limits, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

The insurer, roughly 80 percent owned by the U.S. government, is looking at whether the executives' actions were proper, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with the matter.

The outcome of the review was not immediately known, the report said.

AIG is on the hook to repay taxpayers more than $80 billion, after disastrous bets on mortgages and other assets brought the insurer to the brink of bankruptcy. The U.S. has authorized more than $180 billion of support for the insurer.

Because of that extraordinary support, U.S. pay czar Kenneth Feinberg has say over how top employees at the bank are compensated.

Feinberg has vowed to limit bonuses at AIG's financial products unit, whose massive payouts earlier this year sparked huge outrage.reuters



posted on Dec, 26 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by thebulldog
The idea that there are bonuses period for a job in which one recieves a slary is rediculous. You do your job and take your money this whole 'bonus' stuff is asinine. If you need a huge monetary incentive to do the job to the best of your ability then you shouldn't have the job in the first place. I can't stand this type of greed or even the fact that businesses have to offer bonuses in the first place. despicable.



Bullsh*t. If I come up with an idea outside of my regular duties that saves my company money, I shouldn't be compensated for that? I just rebuilt a componant for a machine, because, the company who made it went out of business. A replacement for this machine would have cost $235,000 and six months down time. I got a $25,000 bonus for that. I didn't have to fix that machine.

If you want to gripe about bonuses for CEO's fine, but, aim your gripes at the right people. The Board of Directors had to authorize that bonus. They aparently thought it was worth it. Bitch at them.

Personally they should have let those companies go splat. Problem is that would have doomed their investors. Investors like the unions who have Obama in their back pocket.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join