- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 139
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Executive Bonuses should not be paid to CEO or AIG or any other financial organization with Public tax money.
Executive Bonuses should not be paid to CEO or AIG or any other financial organization with Public tax money.
The same way they know that the war in Iraq was paid for with borrowed money, rather than revenue pulled from personal income taxes.AIG still has an actual revenue stream, you know. How do you know the bonuses were indeed paid from "public money" and not independent revenues?
Awesome, so you hold Dodd accountable for writing it, and Obama signing it into law.....
As I understand it, the bonuses were contractual obligations that AIG had to fullfill or face owing even larger bonuses down the road. Furthermore, there was nothing the bailout bill that prohibited AIG from using the money for bonuses. Lastly, the contracts with the bonuses were on the books and could've easily been discovered if anyone in government bothered to check AIG out before handing them bushels of no strings attatched cash.
If you're outraged over the bonus "scandal" I suggest you take your misplaced rage at AIG and place it where it belongs - the architects and supporters of bailout bill that were ignorant of this possibility and made no provisions to prevent it. In short, don't be mad at AIG for making a sound decision, be mad at the people who allowed this to happen.
read on, dodd wrote in protections of bonuses in the bill at the request of the Obama administration.
Last I heard (which was 3 or 4 days ago, so this could be out of date) Dodd was claiming he wrote in a provision that would've prevented the bonuses, but it was watered down in committee or something. Strangely, he claimed he didn't know who gutted that provision. If something has come out that gives us more information, let us know.
catch up my friend.
Dodd admitted he wrote in the protection of bonuses at the request of the obama administration
Ghietner admitted it.
Obama played dumbass on late night tv.
He wasn't playing.catch up my friend.
Dodd admitted he wrote in the protection of bonuses at the request of the obama administration
Ghietner admitted it.
Obama played dumbass on late night tv.
But back to my basic point, this story isn't about corporate greed. It's about government stupidity. :doh
Awesome, so you hold Dodd accountable for writing it, and Obama signing it into law.....
I do think the fact that AIG is "too big to fail" is a major issue that people aren't talking about. This crisis is driven by individuals who borrowed money they couldn't afford to pay back from banks who couldn't afford to risk so many sub-prime loans.
But the problem is if they are allowed to go down in flames, they take the rest of us with them. So what do we do?
And what they did wasn't a bad thing with the exception of bonuses going towards the executives at the financial products division.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...bailouts-bonuses-spending.html#post1057967341
and what excuse are you making here? :roll:
I provided a link to an argument regarding the actual nature of the bonuses. You are free to read it and discuss things like adults. If you wish to continue the "I hate OC and will make disparaging comments to him whenever I reply to him" go to the basement.
its bunk. its excuse making for party and in no way worthy of attention in another thread. stop crying.
Driven? Questionable. People keep hammering on the sub prime mortgages themselves while ignoring everything else. The real problem when you examine it is not necessarily the mortgages themselves. It's the leveraging that went on to buy all of the securitized assets. As I've stated several times here, investment banks took out huge loans to purchase such assets. When the revenue streams from the mortgages dried up, the securitized assets essentially became worthless. Normally, on an equity purchase the firm merely writes it down, takes a charge on income and is done with it. It hurts no question and they'll likely have to restrict lending to cover their losses but it's more or less a done deal once the charge dries. Now, what had was leveraged purchases. So instead of writing it off and being done, the investment banks now have to make payments on their loans, largely commercial paper. So no revenue from those assets and liabilities on the original purchase. You see the problem. So banks slash lending to conserve case to try to stay afloat. They call in their lines of credit from regular banks who suddenly see huge outflows from their off the books obligations. So they start cutting lending to cover their lines of credit. So not only are investment banks slowing or stopping lending but regular banks. If the asset backed securities had merely been equity purchases, we wouldn't have this problem. This is lost on so many people it's amazing. Remember that the US housing market is only around 3% of the entire economy and sub prime is a tiny fraction of that 3%. It alone cannot account for this problem. The reason why most mainland European banks are no where near our level of mess is because their leveraging never exceeded something like 15 to 1. At home in the good ol' USA we had leveraging of over 60 to 1. Similar instances happened in England.
The problem itself isn't the sub prime. It's the obscene leveraging. AIG is in the mess because it's essentially insured bonds with CDS which it historically made billions off doing nothing (literally nothing) but is now called upon contractually to make firms whole on largely commercial loans that are going bad.
Interesting, but I'm not quite following you. I'm not a finance or economics major, so I'm a little unclear on some of the terminology. Would you mind breaking it down in a little more layman's terms to help me understand what you're exactly claiming is the problem?