Why is there even an argument about repealing "bonuses" for banking execs?

[ColbertWatcher]

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I find "because suddenly everyone is an expert in contract law" utterly ironic.

Are you an expert on contract law? Do you know beyond a doubt that repealing these bonuses would be legal?

[JuniperLea]

5. That's kinda funny...

Because I used to write executive compensation employment contracts for a company that was acquired by AIG.

What I'm seeing is that no one, including the media, know a tinker's damn about these contracts and their various machinations.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Of course not.

I'd bet you anything that no one's even seen one of these contracts. That doesn't stop them from commenting on it one way or another.

I just find it idiotic that the OP at least seems to be bashing people for "being contract law experts" when they don't even know enough to know if there's any merit to the claim in the first place. "Pot, meet kettle" if you know what I mean.

[JuniperLea]

21. Most bonuses are tied to a company's yearly bottom line...

And are divvied up into bonus pools. I remember being offered a lower salary in order to be included in a much larger bonus pool, and it was strictly merit. I think this is where most people feel bonuses have lost their way... we tend to think in terms of merit based bonuses, and if you helped your company circle the porcelain drain, you really shouldn't be getting any kind of bonus.

If these AIG bonuses are worded in any way showing they are tied to net profit, or to bonus pools tied to net profit, or a percentage of gains, then I'm with the rest of the people and I'll join the angry mob any day.

[Sgent]

33. Not in many industries

Although what you say is true to a point, in many industries (esp. financial) the bonus is tied to personal productivity. So the company could be doing crappy, but if your doing well, you will still receive all/most/50% of your bonus.

[ColbertWatcher]

7. I also don't know that repealing them would be illegal. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. I don't either - but wouldn't that topic be a legitimate reason to argue?

You seem to be rather dismissive over a topic that you admit you don't know much, if anything about.

[ColbertWatcher]

15. "You seem to be rather dismissive" Really? You seem to be psychic.

Since you're able to read my mind so well over the internets.

You're like a psychic Bill Frist.

Seriously, how were you able to find dismissiv-i-ness from this poll that allows you to choose whichever selection you want (including "other")?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. The "why is there even an argument" part suggests that there shouldn't be an argument.

In which case, it rather strongly suggests you don't believe in any of the options you listed. If that's not the case, you worded it very poorly.

[ColbertWatcher]

44. I have no problem when people disagree with me.

If, if, if ...




This is a poll. People are welcome to vote as they see fit, regardless what I think.

And, if I worded a question poorly, it wouldn't be the first time, nor sadly the last.

[burythehatchet]

2. Because Octomom is busy and a shiny object was needed.

[ColbertWatcher]

16. LOL! I was going to include ...

... "because there was no missing, young white girl in the news" in there, but decided against it.

[rrneck]

3. The amount of money

is not all that great under the circumstances, but the issue has a lot of political worth. We need to keep pointing fingers at the asshats that caused this mess.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. Good point. However ...

... the (relatively small) bonuses keep them in the jobs so that they can cause more damage (the real and larger cost).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. I can think of a couple of reasons...

1. It's not that important. It's a distraction. Sure, it's a very bad thing. And back in the old west they'd shoot you for far less. And I wouldn't mind keel hauling the bastards over some barnacle encrusted scow. But in the big scheme of things there is more things to get upset about.

2. Repealing the bonuses may not be a simple matter, and could cost us plenty, even if it works.

[leftstreet]

6. Because the M$M aren't giving us the information needed to form opinions

I know, it's shocking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html?_r=1&hp

Word of the bonuses last week stirred such deep consternation inside the Obama administration that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told the firm they were unacceptable and demanded they be renegotiated, a senior administration official said. But the bonuses will go forward because lawyers said the firm was contractually obligated to pay them.

The payments to A.I.G.’s financial products unit are in addition to $121 million in previously scheduled bonuses for the company’s senior executives and 6,400 employees across the sprawling corporation. Mr. Geithner last week pressured A.I.G. to cut the $9.6 million going to the top 50 executives in half and tie the rest to performance.

Politicians love this shit. It's like a version of Reagan's Welfare Queens all over again. (They also don't want us talking about the BILLIONS of $$ going down the Ruling Class black hole.)

[Myrina]

11. To Quote the movie Frost/Nixon :

" ... if the President does it, its NOT illegal!!! ..."

OVERTURN THOSE BONUSES AND NULLIFY THOSE CONTRACTS, PRESIDENT OBAMA!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Didn't we bash Nixon, and then Bush for invoking that doctrine?

Yeah... I'm going to be consistent on this one. That is NOT a doctrine I want any president to use. Ever.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. That "doctrine" is called "nixo-facto"

http://www.wikiality.com/Nixo_facto

Please use it liberally.

[Myrina]

40. Call me a hypocrite but ...

(well maybe not since I was in elementary school when all the Nixon stuff was going on, so I didn't have an opinion) ...

... if ya got it, Barack, USE IT.

[FloridaJudy]

13. I love the "but it could result in a lawsuit!" argument

Really, folks: can you imagine a jury in the world who would find for these asshats? "Let's see...you ran your company into the ground...had to ask the government for a bail-out, laid off your employees and then used the money to buy yourself a million dollars worth furniture for your private office? Because it's in your contract? Riiiiiight..."

Even the dingbats who acquitted OJ aren't that dense.

[walldude]

17. Some of the responses here are hilarious.

I can't make ends meet, I have no health insurance, I have no savings, yet I'm supposed to not be upset by this "little thing that's "just a distraction" "? What are you fucking kidding me? I have to give tax money to some guy who needs gold faucets on his fucking yacht while I sit here and struggle and people are going to tell me I should worry about other things? Sure there is plenty to be outraged about. This is one of those things. And don't fucking come to me with any of this "contract" nonsense any contracts were null and void when they started playing with my fucking money.

[JuniperLea]

22. Spot on, Dude... eom

[ColbertWatcher]

24. Thank you.

I just don't understand why there is a "debate" about this.

Why are they still getting bonuses after taxpayers bailed their failed asses out?

For me it is clear: they signed up to work for AIG because the company guaranteed them bonuses. AIG failed. The taxpayers had to bail the company out. No more bonuses.

Sorry, I hope there's enough food at the food bank for ya--I hear there's a very long line.

[dysfunctional press]

18. because some of them may actually be deserved?

mainly.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. you think?

[ColbertWatcher]

20. "Deserved"???

[dysfunctional press]

28. exactly.

not all bonuses are created equal, and the word 'bonus' doesn't always mean the same thing at all companies or even for all employees at a company.

if an employee's base bonus is say $50K for each year of service, plus an incentive bonus on top of that which is based on company performance- and they've been there 20 years- why shouldn't they bet at least the base part of their bonus?

for a lot of these guys/gals- their 'bonus' is the biggest part of their annual pay, and big parts of them are not tied to company performance- why should they have their pay yanked from them just because the hoi-polloi don't understand the companies bonus/compensation structure...? :shrug:

and i'm not saying that these numbers or the method described is what aig does- i don't really know how their compensation is structured- but apparently, neither do you.

but at least i'm not getting snookered into the uninformed outrage of distraction.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. I'm talking about executives, not just your run-of-the-mill employee.

It's even in the title of this thread.

[dysfunctional press]

38. i'm talking about executives too.

executives are still employees of the company.
why shouldn't they get the parts of their bonuses that aren't tied to company performance..?

[leftofthedial]

23. because so many are willing not to examine the reality of capitalism.

[ColbertWatcher]

25. Would you care to expand on this a little? n/t

[leftofthedial]

34. It might take a week, or it might take a generation, or it might take seventy-five years,

or it might take a century,

but capitalism inevitably ends up, as it has right now, with its corrupt heart exposed for all to see, or in the disastrous evaporation of a criminally-inflated bubble, as it also has right now.

Capitalism is a massive con-game. Until more people are willing or able to look beyond their Cold War brainwashed conflation of capitalism with democracy there will be no change. The most corrupt, ruthless and greedy will rob us blind every generation or two or three. They work tirelessly from one great raid to another. No society can effectively regulate or police a multi-generational crime.

[HughBeaumont]

39. The way it's played in modern times,

it's no different than some two-bit Reno casino, where the house always wins.

Trust and accountability have to factor in sometime. Otherwise, this will be the willy-nilly 80s-00s played out over and over again, with the boom/bubble/crash cycle happening once every seven years. And the next crash will be worse than the last, unless reins are put on this beast and FAST.

[leftofthedial]

41. The defenders of capitalism here are enamored of a kind of mythological capitalism

that does not exist in the free world.

They also conflate "free enterprise" and capitalism, which are not synonymous.

[HughBeaumont]

42. "Free Enterprise" to an unbridled corporatist = more food.

[rucky]

26. Because a contract is a contract unless it's under six figures

then it's a burden.


edited: for the :sarcasm: challenged

[ColbertWatcher]

27. ...

LOL! for adding the gif!

[Waiting For Everyman]

29. Other - predator groupies.

[ColbertWatcher]

31. Interesing. I've never heard of this demographic. n/t

[Quantess]

32. I don't understand option #3

It seems out of place..?

[Mr. Hyde]

35. so we will be distracted from the fact that we gave tax dollars to foreign banks. eom

[Quantess]

36. never mind. (eom)

[Motown_Johnny]

43. Other, because we need to bitch about something and this is the bitch of the week