Republican Lawmakers Who Opposed Salary Caps Last Month Are Now Attacking AIG Bonuses, Part II
Republican Lawmakers Who Opposed Salary Caps Last Month Are Now Attacking AIG Bonuses, Part II
As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Republicans who opposed Wall Street salary caps, such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Banking Commitee ranking member Richard Shelby (R-AL), are now flipping their positions to condemn the bonuses paid by AIG. Last night, McConnell made the rounds on cable television to misleadingly suggest that he has always favored salary caps.
But McConnell and Shelby are not the only Republican lawmakers pushing this deception. Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) also are hypocritically altering their views:
Q: “Should Congress, should the White House be getting a way for these contracts to be broken?”
KING: “Congress should find a way to do it or the administration should lean on them in a way to get – to have it done.” [MSNBC, 3/17/09]BOND: “It’s unacceptable to pay bonuses after the American taxpayer was forced to bail out an institution without reforming it.” [KRCG, 3/18/09]
INHOFE: “The AIG situation is clear evidence of what happens when you shovel money out the door with no strings attached and no transparency.” [KTUL, 3/17/09]
Only a month ago, King argued against strong provisions to ensure executive salaries were capped:
KING: “No, I will say, I agree there should have been some caps. I think this went too far, and I think it can be counterproductive.” [ABC News, 2/15/09]
Last month, Bond sharply criticized a bill offered by Sen. Claire McCaskill to limit the salary of executives at companies receiving federal bailout money to no more than what the president of the United States makes — $400,000 a-year:
BOND: “The worst thing we can do is tell businesses how to run themselves. Congress has a pretty bad track record. If you you look at our collective judgment, all 535 of us in our wisdom can’t run government very well. (We) sure can’t run business.” [STL Today, 2/2/09]
While Inhofe today demands “strings attached” to federal bailout money, he expressed the opposite in February:
INHOFE: “I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?” [Huffington Post, 2/6/09]
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich today penned an op-ed venting his “outrage” at the “fat bonuses” paid to staffers at AIG. However in November, while speaking with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, he attacked Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) for having the audacity to send “off letters to every bank demanding to know all of their executive compensation policy.” Gingrich then scoffed at the idea of capping salaries specifically at AIG:
GINGRICH: “You have a level of micromanagement of AIG and others. You can’t apply Washington bureaucratic rules to a free market company without ultimately destroying the company.” [Fox News, 11/12/08]
Hypocrisy abounds.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Certainly reads like hypocrisy to me.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm.
It’s about gaming the VOTE!
.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:13 pmYour POTUS, Brotha O, is off to an I-told-you-so start. He manipulated these fine Congressmen, forcing them to say things they didn’t mean, and now they have to come in and clean up the mess that the Messiah made.
Can you say “snookered”?
‘Nuff said.
2012, baby
/ouch! I bit my tongue there in my cheek.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:13 pmAnd who requested that no strings be attached and nothing can be looked into….. his name is Hank Paulson.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:14 pmSo what is wrong with paying these bonuses? I don’t see what all of the hubub is about.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:15 pmThe goppers are scrambling… they see the public has taken notice of the scandal, are upset and will retaliate during election ‘10.
Sad these goppers have no scruples only a sense of greed and fear of lost votes.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:19 pmThanks for pointing out the GOP’s hypocrisy.Remember Palin critizing the Bridge to Nowhere after she lobbied for it.They are all hypocrites.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:21 pm@5 *sniff sniff* ewwwwwwww
March 18th, 2009 at 4:22 pmTroll Droppings.
Cleanup isle Independs.
The answer, my legislator, is blowin in the wind…
March 18th, 2009 at 4:22 pmWe own AIG. All contracts should be subject to full oversight, complete review and revision/cancellation. All employees, starting with the topmost tiers of management, should have their contracts cancelled and be subject to re-hiring at a salary and in a level commensurate with their achievements, or lack of same. We’re the owners folks, let’s start acting like it.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:24 pmHey Random, put up or shut up.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:25 pmHey “Hussein Leporello” Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:26 pmHey, “independent”, do you not “see” or not “agree” with the hubub. If it’s the first, then educate yourself. If it’s the second, how about sharing?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:27 pmYup..The 2 faces of the GOP. Once one is exposed for it’s stupidity they show the other one that exposes their hypocrisy.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:27 pmOne face trashes Limballs and the other face kisses his balls.
So hard to keep up with bipolarism.
So contracts were made between 2 parties. One party fulfills it’s part and therefor the second party needs to fulfill it’s part. I am not sure where the problem lies. You people can spout stuff about this guy is a troll or it’s our company now and go through a bunch of mental masturbation but the fact remains, a contract is a contract. Done, end of story. And don’t even get me started on that P.O.S. Schumer.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pmWatching DC Politicians scramble is the best, the curtain has been pulled back, and we got a real good look at the bedroom eyes you’ve had for Wallstreet for far too long.
Libby looked like he needed a stiff martini today during questioning on capital hill. Hope he has a few tonite, he’s gonna need it!
March 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pmwe are reaping what we sowed: these wall street greedy execs took advantage of our broken election finance system with the campaign contribution. as the result, lawmakers have not been willing to take them on. how can you take on the hands that feed you? until we fix campaign finance, these sorts of things will happen again. good luck, folks.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Hey, “independent”, do you not “see” or not “agree” with the hubub. If it’s the first, then educate yourself. If it’s the second, how about sharing?
Do not see the hubub. Please see # 15.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:31 pmwhere have congress been in the last 8 years? men, men, what a bunch of clowns.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:31 pmJoeBridgeman Says:
we are reaping what we sowed: these wall street greedy execs took advantage of our broken election finance system with the campaign contribution. as the result, lawmakers have not been willing to take them on. how can you take on the hands that feed you? until we fix campaign finance, these sorts of things will happen again. good luck, folks.
Just to be clear, there is just as much corruption on the Left ans there is on the Left. To not acknowledge this is quite poor.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:33 pmKeep in mind that this ‘paycap hypocrisy’ is just a diversion.
So is the entire financial fiasco.
That’s right.
NeoConistic New World Order mandates emptying the U.S. Treasury so they can get on with their global agenda.
Pay no attention to the men on TV. They’re part of the problem.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pmSo, independent, are you willing to state that the union car workers who voluntarily agreed to renegotiate their contracts for the betterment of the car companies and the country as a whole are more patriotic than their Wall Street counterparts who demand their monumental “bonuses” despite anything else going on?
And don’t get me started on the term “bonuses”!
March 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pmThen you probably had some disagreements when the Big Three automakers demanded concessions from the UAW.
After all, they had a contract, too, didn’t they? Shouldn’t Ford and GM fulfill their part of the contract?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pmCertainly can’t argue with this.
On the other hand, one must acknowledge that there is as much corruption on the Right as there is on the Right.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:36 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
independent989 Says:
So contracts were made between 2 parties. One party fulfills it’s part and therefor the second party needs to fulfill it’s part.
Then you probably had some disagreements when the Big Three automakers demanded concessions from the UAW.
After all, they had a contract, too, didn’t they? Shouldn’t Ford and GM fulfill their part of the contract?
Ralph, we should have put all automakers, as well as AIG into Bankrutcy. Then all contracts would be subject to rewriting or termination.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:36 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
independent989 Says:
Just to be clear, there is just as much corruption on the Left ans there is on the Left. To not acknowledge this is quite poor.
Certainly can’t argue with this.
On the other hand, one must acknowledge that there is as much corruption on the Right as there is on the Right.
Ralph, I apologize. Obviously what I meant to say is that there is as much corruption on the right as there is on the left and vice versa.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:36 pmindependent, do you have anything to say about the flip-flopping of these identified Republican lawmakers?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
independent, do you have anything to say about the flip-flopping of these identified Republican lawmakers?
Yes, any lawmaker, that stands agianst these contracts is a P.O.S. whether they are on the right or left. How’s that?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:38 pmOne party fulfills it’s part and …Whaa?
Where in the contract does it say bundle horseshit derivatives so that they can’t be accurately valued, thereby wreaking havoc on our company and the financial sector?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:40 pmIf that was in the effing contract, pay them.
I have noticed the 20 something years olds who do not follow politics are angry at AIG. This tells me their form of entertainment is keeping up with this scandal while other scandals have gone unnoticed.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:40 pmindependent989 Says:
So contracts were made between 2 parties. One party fulfills it’s part and therefor the second party needs to fulfill it’s part.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Tell it to the UAW and PATCO.
Dismissed.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:40 pmThe Republican party is starting to sound like Scarlet O’Hara, and frankly, Scarlet, I don’t give a damn.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:41 pmHey Indefensable, we own them. Last time I looked 80% of a corporate entity = majority. They nearly brought down the entire world financial system. Not their company, not the United States, the entire world. They happily did that in the name of straight greed. This nation is built upon a capitolistic system. If you think there aren’t people out there that can capitolize the breakup of AIG, think again. There’s Tons of money to be made out of that deal, not to mention new companies, job and revenue creation. Careful what I wish for? Justice, simple, justice. That’s what I’d wish for in this situation, call me old fashioned, but I do believe it’s still a valid principle, not just a concept.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:41 pmSo you DID have a problem with the renegotiated contracts for UAW?
I’m not clear on your position here.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:41 pmSo if a company changes ownership does the new owners have to honor contracts from the previous owners?. Was’nt these bonus contracts made before the bailout?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:42 pmSeems to me that the contract holders have to sue the previous owners for breach of contract..So let them go..ah mem..SUE themselves.
anywun hoo standz agianst indie’s homskulin, must also bee a peece of scheis.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:42 pmindependent, but what about the flip-flopping itself? Any comment? And how about my patriotism question? Any comment?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:43 pmRUCerious Says:
One party fulfills it’s part and …Whaa?
Where in the contract does it say bundle horseshit derivatives so that they can’t be accurately valued, thereby wreaking havoc on our company and the financial sector?
If that was in the effing contract, pay them.
RU – The contract put a set of some sort of benchmarks together that said if you so this we will pay you. The traders obviously met their goals and therefor should be given their bonuses. Contracts are as narrow or as broad as the authors intended them to be. It would seem that the health of the company was not taken into effect. Shame on the author.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:44 pmNo, my apologies. I madea little joke at your expense. Of course, I don’t buy, and probably not many others here buy it either, the premise that simply because there is corruption on both sides (which is undeniable) that the level of corruption is necessarily equal.
I think that when you have one side that professes to respect the role of government, and another side that constantly denigrates it, the latter will find corruption of government positions and processes a little easier to justify.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:44 pmGotta wonder if Indie thinks he’s a lawyer or something?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:45 pmThe traders obviously met their goals — of taking the company into bankruptcy? Please.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:45 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
independent989 Says:
Ralph, we should have put all automakers, as well as AIG into Bankrutcy. Then all contracts would be subject to rewriting or termination.
So you DID have a problem with the renegotiated contracts for UAW?
I’m not clear on your position here.
My position is as stated. Both should have been put into bankruptcy. How can I be more clear?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:46 pmOh, and Screw the Author. If the Author knowingly provided cover for fraud, the contracts are null and void anyhow.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:47 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
independent, but what about the flip-flopping itself? Any comment? And how about my patriotism question? Any comment?
Patriotic, I agree with you that the flip flopping is a show of poor character. I don’t think that anyone, whether they were for or against the bailout should be against these guys getting bonuses.
Not sure what you question on patriotism was. What # was it on?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:50 pmYou can say whether you thought the re-negotiations were proper or not.
You have a problem with demanding that a company that had failed so spectacularly that it required a government bailout must cancel bonuses. You base this opposition on the sanctity of contracts.
Yet you seem reluctant to take the same stand with regard to the automaker’s demand that their workers revise their own contracts.
Do you think it was acceptable that automakers demanded their workers change their signed and agreed-to contracts?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:50 pmseriously,
March 18th, 2009 at 4:51 pmwould you expect any less from a bunch of bozos who crow about “big government” yet consistently vote for raises for themselves?
Hey Indumbpendant,
Contracts are broken and or renegotiated every friggen day of the week.
You still smell that?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:51 pmRUCerious Says:
Oh, and Screw the Author. If the Author knowingly provided cover for fraud, the contracts are null and void anyhow.
You don’t know if the the Author knowingly committed fraud. Intent is hard to prove. Where was the Authors incentive for committing fraud?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:52 pmindependent, I’ll make it easier:
So, independent, are you willing to state that the union car workers who voluntarily agreed to renegotiate their contracts for the betterment of the car companies and the country as a whole are more patriotic than their Wall Street counterparts who demand their monumental “bonuses” despite anything else going on?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:52 pm“I don’t think that anyone, whether they were for or against the bailout should be against these guys getting bonuses.”
a) bonuses for WHAT? running the company in the ground?
b) why do they need bonuses for doing their freaking job?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pmOf course they are. But I’m wondering why Geithner and Summers opposed capping executive pay.
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/
March 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pmHmm. *Donning Devil’s Advocate hat*
If CEO Humprey Fartleroy the 3rd writes a contract with Salesman Jones, declaring that “if you increase your sales, you get $100k bonus at year’s end”, and Jones does increase his sales, even if the company almost goes belly up and needs to be bailed out by the government… legally, is the contract valid or void? I mean if there is no clause about the company’s finances on said contract.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:54 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
independent989 Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:
So you DID have a problem with the renegotiated contracts for UAW?
I’m not clear on your position here.
My position is as stated. Both should have been put into bankruptcy. How can I be more clear?
You can say whether you thought the re-negotiations were proper or not.
You have a problem with demanding that a company that had failed so spectacularly that it required a government bailout must cancel bonuses. You base this opposition on the sanctity of contracts.
Yet you seem reluctant to take the same stand with regard to the automaker’s demand that their workers revise their own contracts.
Do you think it was acceptable that automakers demanded their workers change their signed and agreed-to contracts?
Ralph, you can argue this all day but my answer won’t change. If the UAW was not put into Bankruptcy then we would have to honor their contracts. My point is that with the Big 3 and AIG, all 4 should have been put into Bankruptcy. Then the contracts with the UAW could be null and void and and restructured or omitted. Also, the contracts with the derivatives traders would be null and void and could be restructured or omitted.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:54 pmWhere was the Authors incentive for committing fraud?
…
CYA with golden parachutes anyone?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:57 pmRandomChaos Says:
Hey Indumbpendant,
Contracts are broken and or renegotiated every friggen day of the week.
You still smell that?
Not without consequences my friend. And gee, what an intelligent strike you made with attempting to insulting me personally. Way to go chief.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:57 pmThis so easy to figure out, and what it says about pols in general, and Repug congressman specifically.
It used to be, you lied, and who knew whether it was right to disagree. Now Repug sheep, they want to believe everything that their leaders(?) tell them. Well, with that darn google contraption, what you said yesterday, last year, or even back before Rush was oxycondoning on Fl. parking lots using his maid to get the drugs, can now be found very easily. Now, the Repug sheep are still going to believe their beloved leaders, but those of us with a brain) and a computer) are not going to be lied to so easily.
The moral of this story: The Repugs still think they can lie and no one will call them on it. Well, in 2009, with modern technology, lies are now easily discredited in .05 seconds. The old BS is easily debunked to those who want to know, and the rest are Republican sheep.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:58 pmAnd if, by going into bankruptcy, the entire global financial system would collapse, as nearly every respected economist prognosticated, that’s just fine, because contracts are sacred.
Woe.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:58 pmMost of these hypocrites received campaign contributions from AIG.
D’oh!
March 18th, 2009 at 5:01 pmMr. Bond, it’s time for you to sit your dumb @ss down and let people who CAN run the government get in there.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:01 pm600 thousand americans lost their jobs last month alone and the elitists on wall street are whining about their bonuses and being supported by who…the republicans. they’re right, class warfare is going on-sponsored by them against working americans.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:02 pmWhy would we need to argue about this all day?
All it would take is for you to answer a simple question:
Do you think it was acceptable that automakers demanded their workers change their signed and agreed-to contracts?
How tough is that?
I understand your point about bankruptcy. You’ve made it two or three times. Making another time will not substitute for a simple answer to a simple question.
It sounds like you believe that if a corporation does not enter bankruptcy, then all contracts must be enforced. Logically extending that another step, one might conclude that you think it was improper for automakers to demand concessions from the unions. Yet you won’t come out and say so. I just find it curious.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:03 pmBOND: “If you look at our collective judgment, all 535 of us in our wisdom can’t run government very well. (We) sure can’t run business.”
*Stroking hairless cat*
March 18th, 2009 at 5:04 pm- No, Mr Bond, we expect you to LIE!
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
independent, I’ll make it easier:
So, independent, are you willing to state that the union car workers who voluntarily agreed to renegotiate their contracts for the betterment of the car companies and the country as a whole are more patriotic than their Wall Street counterparts who demand their monumental “bonuses” despite anything else going on?
I will say this, the UAW was more worried about being put into bankruptcy than were the management of AIG. That is why they gave so many concessions, in my opinion. I don’t think that the country as a whole came into it, personally. Again, put them on an even playing, field and make them both go into bancruptcy? Patriotic would you agree?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:05 pmAIG financial caused this mess. Transfer all the bonus recipients to that division, spin them off from the parent company, let them fail, end of story. As ye sew, so shall ye reap.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:07 pm______
Apparently the ‘problem’ lies between your ears, you know, that thing you have ‘mentally masturbated’ to the point you don’t even know how to use it anymore, that is, if you ever did.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:08 pmRepublicans are so far behind the train now it’s pointless to quote their remarks any further.
What i find curious is, someone wrote a clause into the agreement that prevents cancelling bonuses issued before 2008. Finding that person or persons should be a matter of record. So far nobody is voluteering this information.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:08 pmLuis M Says:
Hmm. *Donning Devil’s Advocate hat*
If CEO Humprey Fartleroy the 3rd writes a contract with Salesman Jones, declaring that “if you increase your sales, you get $100k bonus at year’s end”, and Jones does increase his sales, even if the company almost goes belly up and needs to be bailed out by the government… legally, is the contract valid or void? I mean if there is no clause about the company’s finances on said contract.
The contract is valid.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:09 pm______
Listen, I know EugeneDebs usually takes care of this, but I handle it this time.
You are a MORON, a stupid MORON. Do you realize how STUPID you are? No, of course not because you are a MORON. Go back to playing with yourself and your video games and get out of here.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:10 pmThe entire financial system is in smoking ruins, unemployment is at 35%, but there’s ol’ indie, smugly reminding everyone ahead of him in the unemployment, er, soup line that contracts are sacred.
Someone will surely drown him in his bowl of thin gruel.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:13 pmYou obviously don’t know what breach of contract means and how that can effectively nullify the contract and open one up to a lawsuit.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:14 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
It sounds like you believe that if a corporation does not enter bankruptcy, then all contracts must be enforced. Logically extending that another step, one might conclude that you think it was improper for automakers to demand concessions from the unions. Yet you won’t come out and say so. I just find it curious.
Ralph, how can I be more clear, you can demand all day, it does not matter if you do not have any leverage. The contracts with the unions should be upheld unless the automakers go into bankruptcy. Same with AIG. Both should have gone into Bankruptcy. What is good for the UAW is good for the traders. What it the problem?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:15 pmBond?
Inhofe!!?
Gingrich!!!??
Is there anyone left in the US who would allow these wackjobs opnions to pass the smell test?
pssst -hey guys – um, yeah, everyone’s pretty much hip to how we got where we are now. y’know, that Gramm-Leach-Bliley thing, and the de-taxing and de-regulating you’ve been doing at the behest of your biggest donors these last 2-3 decades.
lying about this stuff is not going to help.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:15 pmpastcaring Says:
#15 independent989 Says:
So contracts were made between 2 parties. One party fulfills it’s part and therefor the second party needs to fulfill it’s part.
You obviously don’t know what breach of contract means and how that can effectively nullify the contract and open one up to a lawsuit.
OK chief, where is the breach?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:17 pmRUCerious Says:
The entire financial system is in smoking ruins, unemployment is at 35%, but there’s ol’ indie, smugly reminding everyone ahead of him in the unemployment, er, soup line that contracts are sacred.
Someone will surely drown him in his bowl of thin gruel.
Contracts are contracts. You take the good with the bad. You want to see real collapse, start having the gov choose which contracts should be honored and which should not.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:19 pmWe’ve got to acknowledge a bit of a difference between GM, which employs hundreds of thousands who make something tangible, and AIG, which employs a few thousand who make nothing but paper, and in this case, very bad paper.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:20 pmYou’re getting closer, indy. Just a couple more baby steps. You can do it, I knw you can.
Just say:
“I think it was improper for the automakers to demand that their unions renegotiate their contracts in order to stave off bankruptcy.”
You’re almost there. We won’t think less of you for siding with unions, honest.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:20 pmBob Kutner, on last nites PBS Newshour said….
“you heard the president’s secretary, press secretary Robert Gibbs, completely give away the argument when he credited Geithner for talking the CEO of AIG, Mr. Liddy, into reducing the bonuses. So if Liddy could be induced to reduce the bonuses, he could have reduced them all the way to zero.”
Obama needs to get on the right side of this Bonus Issue before it eats him alive.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:24 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
independent989 Says:
Ralph, how can I be more clear, you can demand all day, it does not matter if you do not have any leverage. The contracts with the unions should be upheld unless the automakers go into bankruptcy. Same with AIG. Both should have gone into Bankruptcy. What is good for the UAW is good for the traders. What it the problem?
You’re getting closer, indy. Just a couple more baby steps. You can do it, I knw you can.
Just say:
“I think it was improper for the automakers to demand that their unions renegotiate their contracts in order to stave off bankruptcy.”
You’re almost there. We won’t think less of you for siding with unions, honest.
Ralph, if I demand that you give me $1,000 will you give it to me? No because I have no leverage. Big 3 were demanding that UAW give concessions or they would go into bankruptcy. Nothing wrong with that. I would have no problem with the management of AIG saying to it’s traders, give up bonuses or we will go into bankruptcy. It is equal across the board. If you have leverage you use it. That is the way it works. AIG mgmt did not have to use leverage because gov came and bailed them out with no strings. This I disagree with.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:25 pm—-
I’ll go you one better: OK Chief where does the actual contract back you up?
uh huh.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:26 pmWhile it’s not my job to educate you (an impossible task obviously), your post decries ignorance. You are not well read in history.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:29 pmindependent989 Says:
I would have no problem with the management of AIG saying to it’s traders, give up bonuses or we will go into bankruptcy. It is equal across the board. If you have leverage you use it.
Interesting… since the US government owns 80% of AIG, you would agree that the US government has the right to make such demands in order to stave off bankruptcy.
So it’s NOT as much a matter of contracts as it is a matter of leverage. So why do you demand that the US government not use the leverage it has, as majority shareholder of AIG?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pmpastcaring Says:
#73 independent989 Says:
OK chief, where is the breach?
—-
I’ll go you one better: OK Chief where does the actual contract back you up?
uh huh.
Agreed, I have not read the contracts and I am accepting it on faith that the hundreds of people who want retract these bonuses have studied them to see if they were within the law and the beneficiaries were actually in the right on getting paid. I have to make this assumption but I think that it is a valid one.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pmSorry for the formatting breakdown. This should be easier to decipher:
Interesting… since the US government owns 80% of AIG, you would agree that the US government has the right to make such demands in order to stave off bankruptcy.
So it’s NOT as much a matter of contracts as it is a matter of leverage. So why do you demand that the US government not use the leverage it has, as majority shareholder of AIG?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pmYou know, contracts are agreements. Agreements can be changed if enough leverage is brought to bear.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pmSo what about Congress passing a law that applies a 100% tax on those bonuses. Would that be in breach of contract?
How about 110% tax?
ralph the wonder llama Says:
independent989 Says:
I would have no problem with the management of AIG saying to it’s traders, give up bonuses or we will go into bankruptcy. It is equal across the board. If you have leverage you use it.
Interesting… since the US government owns 80% of AIG, you would agree that the US government has the right to make such demands in order to stave off bankruptcy.
So it’s NOT as much a matter of contracts as it is a matter of leverage. So why do you demand that the US government not use the leverage it has, as majority shareholder of AIG?
Ralph, you are not paying attention. I have never said that the gov should not use their leverage. I have actually argued the exact opposite. I think that both the Big 3 and AIG should go into Bankruptcy or at least threaten to to renegotiate. With AIG it is postscript because the gov has already bailed them out.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:34 pmRUCerious Says:
You know, contracts are agreements. Agreements can be changed if enough leverage is brought to bear.
So what about Congress passing a law that applies a 100% tax on those bonuses. Would that be in breach of contract?
How about 110% tax?
Good and then everyone that congress thinks makes too much money gets taxed on all money. Not sure if that is a real good way to increase private sector investment.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:35 pmThis bonus problem is part of a larger problem, that of using taxpayer dollars to reward hedge funds who bet that the market would fail.
That is it.
The flip-flopping of these politicians, the actual topic of this post, is a side-show and shines a light on the fact that many of these people either don’t know what happened, have been caught out on it and are now scrambling to keep up with the 24 hour news cycle.
Either way, it is a distraction from the transfer of public money (tax-payer funds) into private hands, whether it’s AIG, foreign banks or hedge funds.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:36 pmoh, I’m paying attention. But thanks for your concern.
You seem to be saying that AIG cannot go into bankruptcy, even now. Or you are at least saying that the US government should threaten to allow AIG to fall into bankruptcy, in order to win concessions on the bonuses.
So it’s basically a matter of strategy for you. You wouldn’t have a problem with any of this, as long as someone in the government threatened to let AIG go bankrupt. Is that a fair assessment?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:40 pmPatriotic care to answer my question?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:40 pm.
Dear independent989,
Did the contracts include tanking the global economy?
Please tell…
… If a “BONUS” is performance/merit based, maybe you can explain the ethos behind rewarding the people who tanked the global economy as being worthy of said “BONUS”?
.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:41 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
ndependent989 Says:
Ralph, you are not paying attention. I have never said that the gov should not use their leverage. I have actually argued the exact opposite. I think that both the Big 3 and AIG should go into Bankruptcy or at least threaten to to renegotiate. With AIG it is postscript because the gov has already bailed them out.
oh, I’m paying attention. But thanks for your concern.
You seem to be saying that AIG cannot go into bankruptcy, even now. Or you are at least saying that the US government should threaten to allow AIG to fall into bankruptcy, in order to win concessions on the bonuses.
So it’s basically a matter of strategy for you. You wouldn’t have a problem with any of this, as long as someone in the government threatened to let AIG go bankrupt. Is that a fair assessment?
No it is not fair. I think that both the Big 3 and AIG should have or should go into bankrutcy. Jesus I have said this at least 4 times.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:41 pmndependent989 said to Ralph:
Yet…
… you’re here arguing to NOT let them fail and instead, advocating their rewards?
Fish or snake…
… Which are you?
.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:45 pmGood and then everyone that congress thinks makes too much money gets taxed on all money.
If they help contribute to global economic terror, then maybe we can lable them econterrorists, then all’s fine.
Not sure if that is a real good way to increase private sector investment.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:45 pmAt this point, most investors are watching out for ponzi scams, aren’t you?
nobody would be going bankrupt if R’s hadn’t let Wall St. cokeheads write their own rulebook.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:46 pmBut you also said:
I have never said that the gov should not use their leverage. I have actually argued the exact opposite. I think that both the Big 3 and AIG should go into Bankruptcy or at least threaten to to renegotiate.
(emphasis mine)
How is my assessment unfair in light of this statement?
I mean, obviously,you would prefer these companies go bankrupt and throw hundreds of thousands out of work and dismantle the otherwise sacrosanct contracts under which they’ve operated.
But you said you think they should at least threaten to renegotiate.
Sounds like a strategic concern to me. As long as enough leverage can be brought to be bear, you should be fine with it. If I’m reading you correctly, and you’re consistent.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pmMax-1 Says:
.
Dear independent989,
Did the contracts include tanking the global economy?
Please tell…
… If a “BONUS” is performance/merit based, maybe you can explain the ethos behind rewarding the people who tanked the global economy as being worthy of said “BONUS”?
Max, the key is what is the definition of “performance or Merit” in the contract? If you negotiate a contract with me that says that if I sell 100 pair of shoes I will recieve a bonus of $1,000. If I sell 100 pair shoes, do I get a bonus? What if the cost of the shoes was $20 and I sold them for $5? The contract never said that I had to make a profit or even not to lose money. Shame on the person who wrote the contract but, the contract is still valid. This is a simplistic view at best. I am not saying that the beneficiary of the contract is a good or honest person. I am just saying that contracts are stubborn things and must be honored.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pmPATCO
who was going to “go bankrupt” when PATCO’s contract was torn up than thrown out by st. ronald of ray-gun??????????????
March 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pmMax-1 Says:
ndependent989 said to Ralph:
I have actually argued the exact opposite. I think that both the Big 3 and AIG should go into Bankruptcy or at least threaten to to renegotiate.
Yet…
… you’re here arguing to NOT let them fail and instead, advocating their rewards?
Fish or snake…
… Which are you?
Where have I argued for them not to fail?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:48 pmMy apologies, indy. I quoted you incorrectly.
“But you said you think they should at least threaten to renegotiate”
should have been: “But you said you think they should at least threaten to to renegotiate”.
I don’t think it affects my argument much, but I do like to be accurate.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:49 pm… unless enough leverage can be brought to bear, forcing a renegotiation.
Right?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:50 pmThe big difference I see in this equation is the Big 3 came to DC, hat in hand and talking with their workers to ask for loans. Said loans were made contingent on specific plans to be developed and implemented by the automakers.
So how come Wall Street gets a free ride?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:50 pmFish or snake…
… Which are you?
—
March 18th, 2009 at 5:50 pmFish most definately
Good and then everyone that congress thinks makes too much money gets taxed on all money.
If they help contribute to global economic terror, then maybe we can lable them econterrorists, then all’s fine.
Who decides who is the economic terrorists? What is the criteria? Are you going to leave that up to Congress? Be careful what you wish for.
Not sure if that is a real good way to increase private sector investment.
At this point, most investors are watching out for ponzi scams, aren’t you?
No, I am investing in my own business and hedging against the outrageous inflation that is on the way with hard assets.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:52 pmIf any of the big 3 declared bankruptcy, it would destroy their company,
Who would buy a car from a bankrupt company??? Packards anyone??
And AIG has Trillions of Credit Default Swaps with other Major Banks…and other Countries. AIG’s Bankruptcy could bring down the Entire World Economy. Bear Stearns stock anyone?
That is WHY No one is suggesting Bankruptcy…except perhaps the GOP, whose Ideology is pretty much Bankrupt.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:53 pmIf 80% ownership doesn’t come with the power to influence contracts, why do investors battle for majority ownership?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:53 pmindependent989,
When you say time and time again that they should fail…
March 18th, 2009 at 5:55 pm… Then how do you justify you hypocrissy on paying them the bonuses that prevent them from failing?
ralph the wonder llama Says:
independent989 Says:
I am just saying that contracts are stubborn things and must be honored.
… unless enough leverage can be brought to bear, forcing a renegotiation.
Right?
Agreed but using leverage ultimately requires capitulation on the part of the ones to whom pressure is applied. Not using the power of government to usurp the constitution and make it so.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:55 pmHoodathunk Says:
The big difference I see in this equation is the Big 3 came to DC, hat in hand and talking with their workers to ask for loans. Said loans were made contingent on specific plans to be developed and implemented by the automakers.
So how come Wall Street gets a free ride?
I agree, they should not have been given a free ride. Both AIG and Big 3 should have gone into bankrutcy.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:56 pmdb,
unless he’s an insider…
… Then he’s a snake.
However so, it’s still fishy.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:56 pmO.K. compromise…
… An eel?
Badger Says:
If any of the big 3 declared bankruptcy, it would destroy their company,
Who would buy a car from a bankrupt company??? Packards anyone??
There is a big difference between bankruptcy and ceasing operations. Bankruptcy is a legal option which give a company the right to reorganize their affairs and come out stronger.
And AIG has Trillions of Credit Default Swaps with other Major Banks…and other Countries. AIG’s Bankruptcy could bring down the Entire World Economy. Bear Stearns stock anyone?
Again Bankruptcy is not the same thing as cessation of operations.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:58 pmtombaker Says:
If 80% ownership doesn’t come with the power to influence contracts, why do investors battle for majority ownership?
This provides them the power to influence future events, not past contracts.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:00 pmindependent989,
Are you suggesting that because the contract says one thing and the party “CONTRACTED” to deliver doesn’t, that they are obligated to get paid, anyway?
O.K. So sign me up to rebuild your house for $200,000.00, materials included…
… Just don’t make me actually show up to do the job, NO?
Can I then still demand payment? For services NOT rendered?
But we are forgetting that some of these “BONUSES” were for “RETENTION” purposes, NO? So, if you fire me from rebuilding your house, are you still obligated to pay me?
.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:01 pmNow we see the true ideological bent of our independent friend begin to surface.
Not until this point has he mentioned the Constitution as part of this. No wonder he was so reluctant to side with the unions, and so eager to see huge bedrock corporations fail, which would probably take down what’s left of our economy with them.
Now it’s not a “leverage thing”. What our independent friend resents is THE GOVERNMENT placing itself in the role of corporate management when a corporation that has allowed to get “too big to fail” has been mismanaged to the brink of failure.
I’m guessing that our independent friend would rather see a new Depression than government intervention in the economy.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:03 pmLast comment before I go home:
Max-1 Says:
independent989,
When you say time and time again that they should fail…
I have never said that they should fail. Bankruptcy is not failure. It is a chance to reorganize.
… Then how do you justify you hypocrissy on paying them the bonuses that prevent them from failing?
Bonuses are to Individuals and they do not keep a company from failing or from going into bankruptcy.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:03 pmindependent = supply-sider
case closed.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:04 pmYou have got to be kidding.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:05 pmindependent989 Says:
There is a big difference between bankruptcy and ceasing operations.
That’s a distinction without a difference.
Like it or not…this problem is Partly Psychological.
If Bankruptcy was an easy option…they’d have done it by now. Look at what happened to Bear Stearns.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:05 pmTrue, but since the “products” of AIG are not hard goods but rather insurance, which depends on confidence in its integrity as much as on liquid assets, and under bankruptcy AIG would be short of both commodities, the repercussions of AIG declaring bankruptcy (making vulnerable all of those contracts to provide security for all manner of financial instruments) would be catastrophic.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:06 pmDon’t worry – They can just honor this 2008 bonus contract ammendment Dodd agreed to and they can go after the bonus money another way as allowed in the full contract. At least that’s the way i see it. To put some perspective on it, there’s a lot of ruffled feathers but we’re dealing with an ammount of dollars the country can handle.
It’s a sign the system has started working again every time we see a recognition of mistakes, accountability, and minor coarse changes from government. Dodd did the right thing today and that should give us hope for things.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:08 pmindependent989,
Correct…
Bankruptcy is success, YES?
O.K.
I did say you said “FAIL” when in fact you did say bankruptcy…
… And my argument still stands.
WHY SHOULD WE REWARD THOSE WHO GO BANKRUPT?
.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:11 pmI agree with you ralph. Bear Stearns’ failure made people wealthy by short selling.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:12 pmAIG insured the short sellers. Losing them would screw the pooch for these people. I think that is the real reason AIG is ‘too big to fail’.
Oops, sorry independent989,
SHOULD AIG GO BANKRUPT…
… OR BE PAID BONUSES FOR TANKING THE GLOBAL ECONOMY?
Both?
March 18th, 2009 at 6:14 pmBankruptcy is not failure. It is a chance to reorganize.
Because the old business model… wait for it… failed.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:15 pmI hear AIG can actually be divided up. That way it can be allowed to fail slowly. It’s just the all at once failure that needs to be prevented. That’s the theory i heard anyway.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:24 pmbarfly,
Thanks.
The old obvious was getting in independant’s way of reasoning.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:57 pmHi Proud.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:20 pmNot too many people here are so dense that we actually blame Bush for anything, Proud…
It’s too much of a stretch to give an imbecile credit for the catastrophic implosion of a phenomenally corrupt situation.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:29 pmHi ralph.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:35 pmI suppose now I have to say “Proud of what”
McConnell and Shelby are a couple of RepubliCon liars. Peter King is a RepubliCon liar; Hell, they all are. To be a member of the RepubliCon Party, you have to be a liar or a fool.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pmOT
March 18th, 2009 at 7:39 pmNevar
I’ll bet all sorts of magic is happening in your neighborhood…
It’s all you, dbad…
March 18th, 2009 at 7:43 pmProud(ly) clueless?
March 18th, 2009 at 7:49 pmProud Says:
Chris Dodd added in the loophole allowing the bonuses to be paid. and you all thought it was Bushes fault….go figure
The only thing that Chris Dodd did was not make his amendment regarding bonuses retroactive. Probably because that wouldn’t pass muster as being something like…legal.
You seem to be forgetting that it was Bush/Paulson who made the deal with AIG and didn’t put any restrictions on bonuses. That was the only time it would have been legal to do so, and they chose not to.
So try as you might, you can’t pin this on Obama or even Dodd.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:14 pmWhy do the trolls go with names like proud and simple? And then make ludicrous comments that even a halfwit with an IQ of room temperature would be embarrassed of making?
March 18th, 2009 at 8:18 pmApe-Man Says:
I hear AIG can actually be divided up. That way it can be allowed to fail slowly. It’s just the all at once failure that needs to be prevented. That’s the theory i heard anyway.
It is ridiculous to put AIG into bankruptcy. Since we own 80% already, Obama needs to take it over and then break it up. And something needs to be done soon because it looks like their (supposedly healthy) insurance side of their business may just be in trouble too:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/189917
March 18th, 2009 at 8:19 pmProudMoron Says:
Chris Dodd added in the loophole allowing the bonuses to be paid. and you all thought it was Bushes fault….go figure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dodd tried to put in an amendment to LIMIT bonuses. My GOD you are an ignorant brainwashed moron. So which of the screechmonkeys that do your thinking for you programmed you with THAT one? It is basically a LIE. Go figure.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:28 pmchat Says:
——————————————————————————–
Chris Dodd added in the loophole allowing the bonuses to be paid. and you all thought it was Bushes fault….go figure. thanks you
chat
chat
chat
chat
— weird porn link?
March 18th, 2009 at 9:03 pmThat’s my guess, dbadass.
Why else would someone imitate a troll?
March 18th, 2009 at 9:06 pmand all other the freaking place? What the f uck is wrong with these people?
March 18th, 2009 at 9:09 pmjust about everything.
March 18th, 2009 at 10:52 pmchat says:
“Chris Dodd added in the loophole allowing the bonuses to be paid. and you all thought it was Bushes fault….go figure. thanks you”
What we do know for sure is Bush screwed us and the economy.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:53 amBut he’s hot on the spin trail trying to revise history.
The voices told me to clean the guns and then sharpen the knives. However, the dog, who is the final authority, told me to do the opposite: first sharpen the knives and then clean the guns.
I’ll get back to you after I’ve cleaned the guns.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:11 amThe rest of the blogs have been talking about Dodd slipping in a protection clause for AIG bonuses for 2 days now.
How many more articles about is TP going to write about “paying back these bonuses” while never once acknowledging this?
What are you taking Glenn Beck’s lead on standards of honesty in journalism?
March 19th, 2009 at 4:28 am#
#
What? The amendment protects bonuses contracted before a certain date. It is entirely retroactive, this being the only sense in which it exists.
——
“The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to
required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009”
——
Clearly you’re either entirely ignorant of what you are talking about or a liar.
March 19th, 2009 at 4:35 amNot that I agree with republican or democrats consistantly, but this article is a farce.
The uproar os over BONUSES, not SALARIES. This is a spin of FACTS to make it look like hypocrisy when in fact there is none to be found in this particular instance.
I feel they need to cap BONUSES for bailed out companies but in now way should our government tell us how little or much we can make in a salary.
If this is the case, I say cap all congress and senate members and ask them all to take a reduction in pay during these tough economic times.
Anyways, nice spin on the facts there Think Progress. It’s bloggers and people like yourselves, that have driven this country apart with this he said she said attitude.
Good luck with that!
“Same politics, different party”
March 20th, 2009 at 12:36 amAnd Bilbo and all others who keep blaming Bush…it was Paulsen and Frank that put the AIG bailout together without congress approval…thru the Federal Reserve.
And yet Frank is now claiming to be ignorant to all this hoopla? Get real! It was years and years of wasted money (Bush included) and now we are seeing more spending (in fact more than even dumba** Bush did in a total of 8 years) bailing out flailing companies and no one in the house or senate really seems to have any long term grasp of what the future will hold to pay off all this monumental debt. And they continue to provide no strings attached “loans” to these companies…almost 2 months after we got GWB out.
March 20th, 2009 at 12:42 am