When the President claims he's powerless to stop the bonuses, there's something to be learned from

[closeupready]

that, and namely, that contracts seem to be supremely powerful, they are seemingly powerful than the most powerful person on the planet. :sarcasm:

On a side note, it's ironic to me that often, jobseekers are counseled not to inquire about benefits, as that would be 'unprofessional', and yet here these guys are, with ironclad contracts guaranteeing them bonuses, whether or not there's even a company in existence come bonustime. If the taxpayer has to be hit up for that money, so be it, I'm entitled to that bonus money. GM workers, on the other hand, are not entitled to health care if it costs too much. :eyes:

America is a sick society, when those who don't need are made wealthier while those at the bottom who are becoming homeless, jobless, struggling with bills are left to fend for themselves, and when people don't speak up in their own defense.

[skooooo]

1. Did Obama claim that?

Just wondering if I missed something?

[closeupready]

4. Larry Summers did on This Week this morning.

He said 'oh, we've had lawyers looking at this stuff, and there's nothing we can do.'

[yurbud]

63. He is part of the problem. If the guys on This Week had any integrity, they would have laughed in

his face then given him a wedgie.

This is a national emergency, and these guys caused it. Their contracts should take a backseat and they should be grateful they aren't already someone's prison bitch--which I hope will happen sometime soon.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Or ...

The "most powerful person on the planet" that we have right now adheres to a theory of government that we are a nation of laws that can't be overruled by executive fiat.

[closeupready]

5. Then I guess 'get it in writing' should apply to your secretaries, too.

n/t

[RoyGBiv]

8. I have no idea what that means n/t

[misanthrope]

38. The administration's approach to the enemy combatant issue would seem to rebuke that**nm

**

[RoyGBiv]

39. How so?

This is rather unnerving, the number of people making broad pronouncements that either end with "n/t" or "eom" or some derivation without explaining what they mean.

Understand that what you see as obvious is not obvious to everyone, especially when it concerns legal matters.

[misanthrope]

48. Though the Obama Admin changed the moniker of "enemy combatants"...

...they have kept most everything else associated with it, which would seem to be in defiance of the "nation of laws that can't be overruled by executive fiat" portion of your statement.

[RoyGBiv]

50. Apples and cherries ...

I don't agree with the Obama administration's stance on the matter of detainees.

However, their legal strategy in those circumstances does not rise to the level of an executive fiat. It's a Justice Department strategy still subject to judicial ruling.

[Hannah Bell]

55. somehow that contract law doesn't apply to autoworkers who paid in 30 years

for healthcare benefits & didn't get them, though.

seems the law only applies to rich people - unless, of course, they prefer it not to.

[RoyGBiv]

62. That has nothing to do with the President ...

It does have to do with the terms of the contract.

Clearly the auto workers are getting screwed. Contracts of this variety typically have clauses that allow this, and it is the union leadership that should be condemned for allow it along with prior administrations putting into place policies that by circumstance effectively force that union leadership into making those contracts.

[tomp]

119. really? that must be why he's going after bush/cheney, in so strongly.

bah! obamaphilia strikes again.

[Uzybone]

3. Are you saying that the president should be able to annul contracts?

the rest of your posts is comparing apples to oranges.

[closeupready]

7. If taxpayers own 80% of one party to the contract, um yeah, the contract should be amended.

To put the interests of taxpayers FIRST.

[Yavin4]

11. The Only Way To Void A Contract Is To File For Bankruptcy

The president does not have the power to void a contract.

[Celebration]

43. And THAT is why they need to be in bankruptcy

This is friggin' ridiculous.

[Hannah Bell]

56. so why do they need billions in taxpayer money? seems like prima

facie evidence: they *are* bankrupt.

you act like it's all "legal" & everything.

bullshit, it's theft.

[RoyGBiv]

12. Assuming the law allows that ...

One can't typically decide to amend a contract unilaterally.

[closeupready]

14. Yes, you can.

You are incorrect.

[RoyGBiv]

16. Oh really?

In all cases where the contract or law governing the contract doesn't allow for it?

Please, do enlighten me.

OnEdit: I'll be waiting. Until you can provide a detailed analysis of the legal justification for a President amending any legal contract on his own authority, you have no point at all.

[Hannah Bell]

57. only if you're the more powerful of the contractees....

the less powerful, of course, can't.

[RoyGBiv]

61. Not exactly right ...

What happens is that the more powerful tend to write terms into contracts that allow them to amend contracts, e.g. your credit card company's ability to change its interest rates or a service company's ability to change its terms of service.

But this is agreed to up front. You, as a powerless consumer or something similar, may have no practical choice because you have no negotiating power, but you do have an actual choice, which is not to sign the contract.

As far as the President is concerned, the executive branch of our government is not a party to these contracts and so has no authority to amend them in any case. Laws could be passed that might allow that, but currently no law has been passed that does.

I'm not saying what's happening has any moral justification, but it does have a legal justification, and I frankly do not want our President to continue the methods of the previous administration of claiming unchallenged powers that it does not have.

[Hannah Bell]

71. yep, your "choice" is to opt out of modern life.

you have no power to even "contract" in the old sense of the word. just the power to accept the terms offered, which include the other party's right to amend the provisions at will.

or to reject them, & not have credit (thus not have a good "credit score," thus be eliminated from many job pools, pay cash for your house, higher rates for insurance, etc.)

"choice"

[closeupready]

122. Yep,

Hannah, you rock! :hi: :yourock:

[Uzybone]

18. Think of all the union contracts Reagan would have "amended"

to put "taxpayers first". We don't need this type of precedent.

AIG and its handlers/crooks should be raked over the coals. But lets not give all sorts of imaginary powers to the executive because he is a democrat.

[Donnachaidh]

21. when we are bailing out companies with billions of dollars -- HELL YES!

F*CK these executives and their contracts.

[RoyGBiv]

24. Fuck the law!

Off with their heads!

[Marr]

108. That's pretty much my position.

I'm not going to sit here and claim that I have some knowledge of contract law, because I don't. But I did learn over the last eight years that law means nothing, and leverage means everything. I would be very comfortable with our government saying in form or another, "if you pay these bonuses, you'll regret it". Whether that means bankruptcy or an army of tax men harassing the living hell out of these people or whatever, it's fine with me.

That's never going to happen, of course. It's easy enough to pull on unions and regular citizens, but multi-billionaires are mostly immune from the law in this country, and they're certainly immune to this sort of government manhandling.

[sam sarrha]

6. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF BIPARTISANSHIP RETHUGS WOULDN'T ALLOW PROBATION OF CORRUPTION IN LOANS

[ProgrezivIndie]

9. "contracts seem to be supremely powerful" -- actually

...It means that some corporate lawyers should be DISBARRED and then SUED for malpractice!

I'm no lawyer... but even my LAYMAN's mind has to wonder: Who, in their right LEGAL mind, writes a contract without stipulations which require some sort of elevated PERFORMANCE level in order to qualify for MILLION$ in bonuses?!

[closeupready]

13. Exactly - if it's a 'merit bonus', you don't get it if the company is losing money.

Or if the losses are extraordinary, as everyone can agree they are with AIG.

[AZ Criminal JD]

40. They are performance contracts

If contractual goals are met they must be paid. Obama has nothing to do with it.

[Hannah Bell]

114. gee, what kind of goals did they meet when the corp needs 170 billion from the gov to stay afloat?

lined up their pencils neatly & put the seat back down after using the facility?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/03/hank-greenberg-aig-perpet_n_171311.html

heh. even hank says, "fraud".

[AZ Criminal JD]

125. I have no idea

I didn't write the contract. But if contract goals were met they must be honored or the company would be sued and lose. If the government didn't like that they shouldn't have bailed them out.

[Uzybone]

25. You assume the lawyers are imcompentent

When they are all actually in the game to steal money as well. The whole thing stinks.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Last I checked we elected a President, and got rid of the dictator!

[closeupready]

15. That's nice but has nothing to do with the topic.

n/t

[RoyGBiv]

19. Actually, it does ...

You are suggesting that the President, as the most powerful person on the planet, has the ability to amend contracts on his own authority.

You would be wrong.

One who claims such a power might rightly be called a dictator working outside the bounds of a constitution.

[closeupready]

20. Wow you are all over this thread, speaking for others. Gosh.

Can you let others get a word in edgewise?

[RoyGBiv]

23. I'm sorry ...

Did you confuse this public discussion forum for a personal private soapbox?

I'll respond to what I like, thanks. I appreciate your concern for others, though. I'm sure they do too.

[Political Tiger]

26. He's right. n/t

[closeupready]

29. Wrong.

But he's on ignore now, so it doesn't matter what he thinks.

[RoyGBiv]

32. Still waiting ...

I'm still waiting on that explanation of how contracts can be unilaterally amended by a President ... or anyone actually.

Oh, yes, I'm on ignore, so you won't answer.

Someone who challenges you to produce evidence for your claims ... that's the person you ignore.

I guess all those who don't have me on ignore will have a clear vision of how well you're able to support your argument.

[Hannah Bell]

103. Fraud, to defraud

- The term 'fraud' is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage.

To make a 'misrepresentation' simply means to state as a fact something which is false or untrue.

Thus, to constitute fraud, a misrepresentation must be false , and it must be 'material' in the sense that it relates to a matter of some importance or significance rather than a minor or trivial detail.

To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation must also relate to an 'existing fact.' Ordinarily, a promise to do something in the future does not relate to an existing fact and cannot be the basis of a claim for fraud unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Similarly, a mere expression of opinion does not relate to an existing fact and cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion.

To constitute fraud the misrepresentation must be made knowingly and intentionally, not as a result of mistake or accident; that is, that the person either knew or should have known of the falsity of the misrepresentation , or that he made the misrepresentation in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity.

Finally to constitute fraud, the Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant intended for the Plaintiff to rely upon the misrepresentation ; that the Plaintiff did in fact rely upon the misrepresentation ; and that the Plaintiff suffered injury or damage as a result of the fraud.

In some cases when it is shown that a Defendant made a material misrepresentation with the intention that the Plaintiff rely upon it, then, under the law, the Plaintiff may rely upon the truth of the representation, even though its falsity could have been discovered had he made an investigation, unless he knows the representation to be false or its falsity is obvious to him.

In other cases, when it is shown that a Defendant made a material misrepresentation with the intention that the Plaintiff rely upon it, the Plaintiff must prove that his reliance was justified. If, in the exercise of reasonable care for the protection of his own interests, the Plaintiff could have learned the truth of the matter by making a reasonable inquiry or investigation under the circumstances presented, but failed to do so, then it cannot be said that he 'justifiably' relied upon such misrepresentations .

For injury or damage to be the result of fraud, it must be shown that, except for the fraud, the injury or damage would not have occurred.

The word 'material' means that the subject matter of the statement related to a fact or circumstance which would be important to the decision to be made as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial or unimportant detail. (e.g. re: insurance fraud - to be material, an assertion must relate to a fact or circumstance that would affect the liability of an insurer (if made during an investigation of the loss), or would affect the decision to issue the policy, or the amount of coverage or the premium (if made in the application for the policy).

Torts. Unlawfully, designedly and knowingly, to appropriate the property of another without criminal intent. For example:

1. Every appropriation of the right of property of another is not fraud. It must be unlawful; that is to say, such an appropriation as is not permitted by law. Property loaned may, during the time of the loan, be appropriated to the use of the borrower. This is not fraud, because it is permitted by law.

2. The appropriation must be not only unlawful, but it must be made with a knowledge that the property belongs to another and with a design to deprive him of the same. It is unlawful to take the property of another; but if it be done with a design of preserving it for the owners or if it be taken by mistake, it is not done designedly or knowingly and, therefore, does not come within the definition of fraud.

3. Every species of unlawful appropriation, not made with a criminal intent, enters into this definition, when designedly made, with a knowledge that the property is another's; therefore, such an appropriation, intended either for the use of another or for the benefit of the offender himself, is comprehended by the term.

4. Fraud, however immoral or illegal, is not in itself a crime or offence for want of a criminal intent. It only becomes such in the cases provided by law.

Contracts, Torts. Any trick or artifice employed by one person to induce another to fall into an error or to detain him in it, so that he may make an agreement contrary to his interest. The fraud may consist either, first, in the misrepresentation or, secondly, in the concealment of a material fact. Fraud, force and vexation, are odious in law. Fraud gives no action however, without damage and in matters of contract it is merely a defence; it cannot in any case constitute a new contract.

Fraud avoids a contract, ab initio, both at law and in equity, whether the object be to deceive the public, third persons or one party endeavor thereby to cheat the other.

The following is an enumeration of frauds for which equity will grant relief:
1. Fraud, dolus malus, may be actual, arising from facts and circumstances of imposition, which is the plainest case;
2. It may be apparent from the intrinsic nature and subject of the bargain itself; such as no man in his senses and not under delusion, would make on the one hand and such as no honest and fair man would accept on the other, which are inequitable and unconscientious bargains;
3. Fraud, which may be presumed from the circumstances and condition of the parties contracting;
4. Fraud, which may be collected and inferred in the consideration of a court of equity, from the nature and circumstances of the transaction, as being an imposition and deceit on other persons, not parties to the fraudulent agreement;
5. Fraud, in what are called catching bargains, with heirs, reversioners) or expectants on the life of the parents. This last seems to fall under one or more of the preceding divisions.

Frauds may be also divided into actual or positive and constructive frauds.

An actual or positive fraud is the intentional and successful employment of any cunning, deception or artifice used to circumvent, cheat or deceive another.

By constructive fraud is meant such a contract or act, which, though not originating in any actual evil design or contrivance to perpetrate a positive fraud or injury upon other persons, yet by its tendency to deceive or mislead them or to violate private or public confidence or to impair or injure the public interests, is deemed equally reprehensible with positive fraud and therefore is prohibited by law, as within the same reason and mischief as contracts and acts done malo animo. Constructive frauds are such as are either against public policy, in violation of some special confidence or trust or operate substantially as a fraud upon private right's, interests, duties or intentions of third persons; or unconscientiously compromit or injuriously affect the private interests, rights or duties of the parties themselves.

The civilians divide frauds into positive which consists in doing one's self or causing another to do such things as induce a belief of the truth of what does not exist, or negative, which consists in doing or dissimulating certain things in order to induce the opposite party into error or to retain him there. The intention to deceive, which is the characteristic of fraud, is here present.

Fraud is also divided into that which has induced the contract and incidental or accidental fraud. The former is that which has been the cause or determining motive of the contract, that without which the party defrauded would not have contracted, when the artifices practised by one of the parties have been such that it is evident that without them the other would not have contracted. Incidental or accidental fraud is that by which a person, otherwise determined to contract, is deceived on some accessories or incidents of the contract; for example, as to the quality of the object of the contract or its price so that he has made a bad bargain. Accidental fraud does not, according to the civilians, avoid the contract but simply subjects the party to damages. It is otherwise where the fraud has been the determining cause of the contract;


in that case the contract is void.

[RoyGBiv]

107. Okay ...

This does not apply to the previous question of how a President is able to unilaterally amend a contract.

Please be certain you understand what the words "unilateral" and "amend" mean before commenting.

OnEdit:

I kick myself for bothering, but just in case someone comes along later and reads this who actually wants to understand these things, I will.

What you posit involves, in effect, breach of contract, i.e. the contract is null and void if its terms are not met or if it was entered into in bad faith. Neither of these conditions apply. As has been explained, the contracts involved were performance contracts for individuals. Said individuals had to meet certain goals, and if they did so, the company that employed them was contractually bound to adhere to the terms of the contract, which in this case involved paying them a certain amount of money. As has also been discussed and to some extent explained, the terms of "performance" often relied on values that you and I could consider absurd or antithetical to the very idea of positive performance, i.e. the manager of a certain section performs well financially while the company around him falls into chaos, perhaps because that section performed well.

So, in the real world, we have a bunch of idiots who worked for a company that was going down the tubes with a vengeance, and their every action was pushing them down the tubes. Unfortunately, the terms of their contract stated that the actions they took were what those who set the standards wanted, e.g. increase in revenue for a certain branch, meeting sales quotas, etc. The company as a whole, when the market turned and/or the real estate market turned upside down, tanked, but those individuals performed well as defined by their contract. Ergo, their companies are contractually obligated to pay them. If, on the other hand, the strategies and tactics these individuals employed could be found to be illegal or in some other way not adhering to the terms of their contract, they would not be due payment. What's been suggested by rational people is that this path be followed, and well it should. However, what is likely to emerge is that if any illegal or otherwise unethical actions were involved it was by the company's top executives, in which case *their* contracts might be able to be declared unserviceable.

But, the unfortunate reality is that most of these individuals didn't do anything illegal, even if it was shitty. (Madoff and those of a similar ilk were different. If they end up getting their bonuses as it looks like they might, I'll join with you in screaming bloody murder.) They did things that played off the rules set by BushCo, and administrations before, which, like it or not, was legal. If what they did on the authority of Bush's implementation of law was *not* legal, then we have a new problem, one of prosecuting Bush, et al to find that those actions were explicitly illegal. Once a ruling comes there, then we can go after these executives, maybe, if they knew they were following illegal mandates.

I don't like this. I think it sucks a hot, stinky wind, but there it is. Those companies could be forced into bankruptcy and, I think, should be, but the liability of these payments still remains and will be a part of the bankruptcy settlement, so they're getting paid anyway.

The problem, as has been expressed numerous times now, is with the system itself, a system that was germinated decades ago and which no one has before now sought to undo or even alter in any meaningful way.

[Hannah Bell]

109. "Please be certain you understand what the words "unilateral" and "amend" mean before commenting."

please understand your remarks may be mistaken for those of a condescending ass

before you open your mouth.

or unleash your mighty fingers.


"unilateral"

"amend"

oooooh, big words, too big for the likes of me, college boy, i'll just creep back to my little hovel & let you smart ejamacated folk fix stuff -

oh wait.

[RoyGBiv]

111. I am being condesending ...

When my attempts to discuss this issue are met with one-liners, ignores, sarcasm, and generally a complete failure to address anything I have said with actual substance, that's the result.

If you can't take it, then don't dish it out. You cannot expect to be granted more respect than you give.

[Hannah Bell]

112. i can obviously take it, i just gave it back. difference is, i never insulted your intelligence.

gotta be sharp to catapult the bullshit. i concede that & salute you, sir.

i finished grade school, though, so i know some 'a them big words.

[RoyGBiv]

113. If you say so n/t

[Synicus Maximus]

28. Remember that one should not let little things like laws and

contracts get in the way of making statements against those you dislike.

[Hannah Bell]

115. Tell the banksters: "Credit card cos cutting limits below people's outstanding balances w/o notice"

Credit card companies are cutting people's limits below their outstanding balances without notification

If you haven't had the credit limit cut on your credit card recently, count yourself lucky. Risk-averse card issuers are getting slash happy. And while many cardholders gripe that such cuts slice razor-close to their balance amounts, for an unfortunate few the cuts go far deeper: below what they currently owe.

Under different circumstances, David Chaplin-Loebell wouldn't have minded that American Express cut his unlimited credit line to just $5,000. Except that when AmEx reduced his line in October, he had an outstanding balance of $10,000. "I found out by having a business purchase declined," he says. Repeated calls to AmEx failed to yield an answer about why the cut was made. Chaplin-Loebell, who lives in Philadelphia, is now paying the balance under his regular card terms, and presumes the line will free up for new purchases once he's below the limit. "For now, they've essentially frozen the account," he says, leaving him to juggle business expenses on his personal cards. American Express did not respond to requests for comment.

Full article:

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/1067...


"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

[Celebration]

44. yeah, well, he can put them into bankruptcy

And government receivership, and he SHOULD.

[RoyGBiv]

49. Bankruptcy ...

I am coming around to agreeing that AIG and certain other institutions should be cut off and thus thrown into bankruptcy.

I say that knowing full well that when it happens, it will send an extreme shock into an already twitchy economic situation worldwide. But at this point, pouring money into AIG has gone to the level of throwing good money after bad.

Unfortunately, that still doesn't address the compensation issue directly. That compensation is a liability, and in bankruptcy, those with claims on the bankrupt institutions have certain claims to how it all plays out. As mention by someone else, those due a bonus are in that pecking order and will end up paid at some level anyway.

Overall, this compensation issue is a systemic issue. We can rail all we want about AIG specifically, but until the system is changed, it's not going to matter. AIG in and of itself is not the problem. The problem is a system that grants rewards to those institutions that can produce outrageous, but short-term profit.

[FrenchieCat]

22. You are talking about presidential powers.....

and how they relate to negating legal contracts....and also,

I realize that you are pointing out the difference in treatment between Union contracts of like GM employees,and these particular contracts held by AIG employees.

I imagine that collective bargaining is what is part of the difference.

[Hannah Bell]

116. The union figureheads, like the gov't figureheads, work for the banksters.

That's why corps can "renegotiate" contracts & screw workers, but banksters' contracts are inviolate, even when the public has to pay to fulfill them because the banksters took down the entire economy with their bullshit.

"House always wins"

[burythehatchet]

17. Inverted Totalitarianism. Google it. Read about it. It is us.

[Horse with no Name]

27. I'm just curious why these "bonuses" aren't tied to job performance

because the company was run into the ground by these same perps who are now receiving bonuses.
Sounds like AIG should have to PROVE that these bonuses weren't done AFTER the bailout so that they would all be assured their golden parachutes while we all receive golden showers.
I don't believe for a minute that there were IRONCLAD contracts in existence. I do believe there was some fishy paperwork to receive these bonuses AFTER the fact.
Seriously...if you defraud an entire population and government--what is a little backdating of a contract?

[pleah]

30. I have been wondering about that, too.

I can't believe a company would be that stupid to write a contract paying out bonuses for running a company in the ground. This just doesn't make any sense to me.

[RoyGBiv]

31. That's a good question ...

I can only provide a partial answer based on personal knowledge.

The short answer is, these bonuses are tied to performance. They are not, however, tied either to 1) long-term performance or 2) company-wide performance.

Regarding the first point -- and this is something I have railed about in the past for personal reasons -- company executives in the environment fostered by the business culture that developed out of the 80s and the skyrocketing stock market began being judged more for their ability to produce short-term gains than develop long-term stability. One of the VPs of the company from which I resigned a bit over a year ago was brought in precisely for this reason. The board wanted, to put it bluntly, an exponential increase in revenue. He was hired because he had shown an ability to do that. The consequences were, of course, an equally exponential increase in employee turnover and increasing doubts about long-term stability. Customer satisfaction plummeted based on independent reviews, and sales tactics were implemented that were downright dishonest, though not illegal. Through four quarters his tactics managed to produce greater than a 25% increase in revenue. What was not taken into account was the concomitant increase in customer drift, i.e. most of the new customers that were acquired were not long-term customers.

His contract, though, was based on producing that short-term increase in revenue, and he got a hefty bonus for it. Then, the chickens started coming home to roost, and he resigned a few months before I did. His replacement came in with a charge to stabilize what his predecessor had started and maintain a certain percentage of the previous year's growth, and the tactics he used were even worse.

As for the second point, again using my personal example, the sales department at our company experienced an increase in revenue. At the same time, shortly before that executive left and after some of the fallout of his tactics began to be felt, the service department started reporting an extreme increase in service calls, which are a drain on income. The revenue increase, but then the expenses began to increase later also to the point the service department was no longer achieving its goals. The individual brought in to replace the previous VP took this into account, and, rather than improving sales tactics to be more honest and lessen the burden on the service department, began firing service department employees who had been with the company for years and thus had larger salaries. His justification for this was gained through implementing sales quotas on service personnel who had never sold anything before and so didn't have much success at this. Still, the company needed those service personnel, so the ones that were fired were replaced with new employees, trained largely in sales rather than service and paid at a fraction of what the previous service personnel had been. A few more business quarters showed balance sheet improvements at various intervals, and through it all, the long-term prospects of the company were never considered.

In the final analysis, it turned out that the reason for *all* of this was that the major owners in the company were wanting to sell their interests. Producing momentary increases in revenue and making the balance sheet drawn at the moments before the sale appear stellar, then, were important to their goal. Long-term stability was not.

So, everyone got their bonus, even though the company itself as a whole began to degrade.

[Maru Kitteh]

33. But, but, but - I thought Obama was a socialist dictator who enacted a plan to

not let anyone ever be rich, ever again. I was really looking forward to my Chairman Mao suit. Damn.

Right-wingers want to call him a socialist wage-controller but then turn around and scream bloody murder about these bonuses.

[sendero]

34. They are doing nothing..

... because they don't work for us, they work for Wall Street.

Figure it out people, Geithner and Summers are not on our side. Forget what they say, watch what they do - NOTHING. Funnel BILLIONS of dollars to these crooks with NO ACCOUNTABILITY WHATSOEVER.

All you people got justifiably angry with the Bush admin for piling cash into Iraq, how is this different?

Obama is fucking up big time and he's got months to figure it out.

[closeupready]

35. Amen. Exactly right. People here are smart; they MUSTknow that by now.

I can't figure out why neglect of this issue by the administration seems to engender so much defense from people here.

[RoyGBiv]

36. Of course ...

This has nothing to do with amending a contract.

[leftofthedial]

37. how come he wasn't powerless to give them a trillion bucks?

[Hannah Bell]

59. he can only give; & only to the powerful. that's the power of the office.

[OHdem10]

41. There goes our Democracy Folks.

[many a good man]

42. Do the shareholders have any say in bonuses?

Who are the largest shareholders in AIG now?

[Celebration]

45. We need VOTING shares

We own the damn thing, don't want it, and can't vote as shareholders.

STINKS.

[femrap]

46. These contracts are for the boyz in the Derivative

Department that caused this fucking mess in the first place. I say they are forced to train their replacements to get 1/2 their bonus. And the replacements are folks who have been laid off in the finanacial world. Hell,

I could straighten out this derivative mess. Why reward those who caused the mess in the first place....we have paid these PsOS $170 BILLION dollars and they are still not on their feet. And little Bernanke said tonight he 'slammed the phone down' on several occasions.

What a bunch of complicit assholes or are they cowards?

Who is CEO of AIG....wasn't Buffett involved with them at some time?

[RoyGBiv]

47. Just curious ...

You say you could straighten out this derivatives mess.

What's your plan?

[femrap]

52. HONESTY....

I think we need some accounting forensics as well as those who have worked the derivatives (seriously they can train their replacements)...looks like the SEC is worthless. I would look at the Roubini and some other economists and maybe some quants who have realistic models to price the mess.

But it has to be honest. It has to be dealt with and FAST. Get the toxicity OUT! And I'd put some people in jail...TALK OR FACE CHARGES!!!! It's a damn racket and conspiracy. Derivatives are crap...Las Vegas has better odds. They are unproductive...they produce nothing....that's basically what is wrong with this country. All we produce is toxic paper that has poisoned the world's economy.

I've worked with these 'masters of the universe'....they're basically cowards and cowboys who would rat out their own mothers. I would give anything to work on this.

[RoyGBiv]

53. We agree on one thing ...

The SEC is, or has been, completely worthless. I don't know who has been working there for the past 20 - 30 years, but they seem not to have a single clue.

That said, compelling honesty is all well and good, and such a thing could be enforced with proper regulation, which means proper oversight by competent people who aren't in the back pockets of the people over whom they are seeing.

But it doesn't address the problem now. The "derivatives issue" at the moment involves the reported assets of numerous institutions that, if they fail entirely due to this, bring down all of us with them. It's not our fault this happened. It is in fact the fault of the very people who are in charge of those institutions receiving billions of dollars of cash in a desperate attempt to make up for their incompetence. We hate that, as we should, but what I want to know is, what's the alternative? What, realistically, is the scenario that involves allowing every last one of these institutions to fall into bankruptcy and still maintain any semblance of an economy that allows any of us to draw a paycheck? Unemployment is bad now and going to get worse. Should all the financial institutions go belly-up in one, fell swoop, we're going to see unemployment the likes of which wasn't even seen in 1932.

I'm angry too. I have fought battle after battle with corporate execs over the insane tactics they used. I ( a lot of us ) was right, and they were wrong, but they had the power, and I (we) didn't. Now we're in a very bad spot where we have to admit and punish the fact these idiots screwed up royally while at the same time also recognizing the institutions they ran fueled our economy. There's no getting around that, and it's the basic problem. We can call all these idiots to the mat and demand they fess up, and we could put them all in jail and feed them stale bread and dirty water for the rest of their miserable lives, but that only serves for vengeance. The problem still remains. When their institutions fail, we suffer.

So, what do we do about that? The broad answer is to change the system, but systems like this are not easily changed. In fact, historically, systems like this only change through bloody wars. I'd like to avoid the war part.

For the record, I'm not claiming I have an answer either. I am simply wanting it recognized that this is not a binary equation where everything is right or wrong, black or white. It's a bunch of bullshit that was handed to us to deal with, and if we deal with it only with vengeance, we're going to be guilty of the same thing of which many corporate executives are guilty -- short-term gain/satisfaction.

[femrap]

123. You say vengeance where I

say Justice. I just don't see how we can reward bad behavior...the people that got us into this mess are not the ones to get us out of it.

Someone needs to face the CEO of AIG and take him down. Period. I don't remember his name. That would be a good start. This would be symbolic and provide a huge message of 'we mean business.'

Maybe then we could get a handle on the mess....again bringing in forensic accountants. To let these CEOs stay on just makes no sense to me. It shows there will be NO CHANGE.

And by keeping all the bankers employed while every other industry (esp. manufacturing) loses jobs PERMANENTLY just makes no sense.

We are going to suffer no matter what...I guess it will be to what degree.

When I worked in the Corporate world, I was amazed at the stupidity of upper management. Alas. All I get to say is 'I told you so.'

[2Design]

51. he could stop giving them money - if they failed there would be no bonuses n/t

[ljm2002]

54. So, let me get this straight...

...when GM and other automakers are having troubles, due in no small part to poor decisions by management, the contracts of the auto workers can be brok... er, "renegotiated" at will.

But when AIG is having troubles, the bloated bonuses of the UK executives who brought their institution and the world's finances to its knees, are sacrosanct and cannot be renegotiated and must, indeed, be underwritten by the US taxpayers.

Is that about it?

So is UK contract law more binding than contract law here in the good ol' USofA? What the hell? Frankly, I'd rather my tax dollars were going to union auto workers in the USA right now, helping to renew Detroit, than to rich incompetent assholes in Great Britain. But that's just me.

[Hannah Bell]

60. sad & infuriating. to see "democrats" defend such blatant nonsense equally

sad & infuriating.

hysterically funny when you think of the GOP labeling Obama & co. "communist".

[Hannah Bell]

58. Here we are at DU, & the lawyers (or wanna-bes) are all over the thread

defending the right of corps to rob the public blind & dressing it up in the "sanctity of contracts."

Sad, & telling too.

[Uzybone]

64. Its easy to rant and be angry and outraged

very easy. In fact so easy that the GOP have mastered it. But actually trying to figure out how to solve the problem is not so easy. In the imaginary world, the outraged could just march up to AIG and snatch away the bonuses, those in the real world have to actually sit down and think of how to figure out this mess.

[Hannah Bell]

66. ranting is the main "power" reserved to the people.

your "sit down & figure it out" is not real world.

what, should we rent a hall?

the solution would have been not to give them money without oversight & conditions.

our "leaders" didn't do that, not because they're stupid, but because THEY WORK FOR THE BANKSTERS.

In the face of that, there's nothing to "figure out".

[Uzybone]

69. This money was "loaned" to AIG under Bush, with no oversight

No one is defending the bonuses, all we are pointing out is that the current administration is genuinely hamstrung on this issue.

[Hannah Bell]

72. they "loaned" them more.

[RoyGBiv]

67. Precisely ...

I thank (insert powerful being here) daily that at least some among us understand this.

[RoyGBiv]

65. Here we are at DU ...

... defending the legal system and insisting that our current President not rule as though he were a dictator. Shocker.

Yes, our legal system has many flaws that result in a lack of justice. What many of us fail to understand on any level is that the idea of justice is one of faith. Legalities need not be just. Is a law against a 12 year old who was raped and impregnated having an abortion just? I think not, but if such a law is passed and signed by the executive and upheld by the Court, then that law is legal, regardless of whether it is justified.

If you would like to claim that the proper course of action would be to ignore the laws, then by all means do so, but say it plainly rather than with these attempts to claim Obama or anyone has a legal right to do this or that. I might even be moved to agree with you to some extent because I have long held an opinion of the law that holds unjust laws have no authority. However, in doing so I recognize that the legal system and the executive that oversees the execution of laws is not beholden to my personal opinion of justice. Frankly, I want it that way because I know that while I might think I am right all the time in believing people like those who run AIG should be taken out and beaten for public entertainment, I don't want the legal system to run according to the way an individual or even a group of individuals think. I don't want an Americanized French Revolution. Robespierre was *wrong* in his tactics, even if he was right in his grander vision.

Simply stated, I don't want to be Bush or one of his minions, ruled by my emotions and beholden to no law with which I don't personally agree because it doesn't advance my personal ideology.

[Hannah Bell]

68. "defending private privilege"

works for the banksters.

dress it up in lace & cotton candy as you please.

[RoyGBiv]

75. Just once ...

I'd like someone involved in one of these debates to engage in actual conversation.

You and many others in this thread have thrown out nothing but one-liners or shallowly packed commentary that fails utterly to address those with whom you disagree. And you seem to think this means something, that your opinion is one of inherent natural law or some such thing.

Plainly stated, I've followed your posts specifically for a long time now, and you often have some very good things to say. Potentially to your horror, I actually agree with your overriding premise: these corporate bastards suck and should pay dearly. But you and others seems to see this as an either/or debate, not at all unlike the "with me or against me" meanderings of our previous so-called leader.

That's not what it is. We have the same goals, believe it or not, but I have a different view of how those goals should be achieved, and one of our differences is, apparently, that I want the representatives of our executive branch to obey laws strictly and not according to their own or someone else's momentary ideas of right or wrong. Legal precedent is meaningful; consider that our own President, much to my dismay, has invoked the "signing statement" tactic of his predecessor. I want that to stop, even if I agree with the substance of why he's doing it.

Anyway ... if you want to dismiss me entirely because I don't by default agree with what you say, by all means go ahead and live in that world where those who aren't solidly behind your opinions without question are deserving of no hearing. Certainly the OP is inhabiting that world, having chosen to ignore me when I ask a simply question ... or perhaps because I replied too often ... or, well I don't know why. Perhaps I'm just an asshole for not running around agreeing with everything everyone says regardless of what I myself think.

I don't like cotton candy. The calories are empty ones. What I do like is a complex approach to complex problems, not an "off with their heads" mentality.

[Hannah Bell]

77. there is no "complexity". theft , fraud, & manipulation.

no "rule of law".

[RoyGBiv]

82. Thanks ...

You made my point poetically.

Good night.

[Uzybone]

70. For all the ridiculousness of McPalin, we only won 53-47

Like it or not, one day there will be another GOP president, and I will like to be able to speak up without feeling like a hypocrite when he/she is once again reaching out for powers they do not have.

I expect to Democrats to follow the law (no matter how sick it makes me).

Yours was a great post.

[RoyGBiv]

84. Thank you ...

You've made some fine additions yourself.

I'm signing off now. It's devolved into nothing but one-liners.

[Hannah Bell]

85. Why spend words on what's clearly theft?

That's only necessary when you're trying to rationalize it.

"It's sooooo complicated & multifaceted, we must defend the rule of law...."

BULL. SHIT.

[RoyGBiv]

87. And there you have it ...

To Hannah Bell, the defense of the rule of law is bullshit.

You'd have fit in well in late 18th century France.

[Hannah Bell]

89. you just told me you were going to bed, secure in the knowledge obama

"understands these things".

just couldn't resist calling me a guillotine-wielder, couldja?

ok, so go to bed already, Seigneur.

[RoyGBiv]

92. No ...

I said good night. I said this because I'm finished trying to have an actual discussion, but if you'd like to continue trading barbs, I'm all fingers.

I did not say "I am going to bed" nor did I say I was secure in any knowledge. Rather, I said I was glad we have a President who understands these things at the same time I bid you a good night.

See, in a legal setting, these two things are different, but then you don't like the law, so why would you care about that?

[Hannah Bell]

99. you're right, you said "good night". one usually says it at bedtime.

in the common parlance, where things are not so terribly complicated as for the defenders of theft by the rich.

[RoyGBiv]

100. Sorry ..

Forgot

[BlooInBloo]

73. It's well known that DUers only believe in the rule of law when it suits them.

[Hannah Bell]

76. there is no "rule of law" involved here.

it's well known some du-ers are creatures of the ptb, however.

[BlooInBloo]

79. Ah. What's "the ptb", by the way?

[Hannah Bell]

94. kinda like pbj

but different.

pt boat?

pulmonary tuberculosis?

Phosphotyrosine-binding?

physical therapy board?

[RoyGBiv]

80. Contracts have no place in the rule of law?

What an odd statement.

[Hannah Bell]

81. you're the only one who made it, so you must be the odd one.

[RoyGBiv]

83. Hello?

(sigh)

Well, I'm just thankful we have a President who understands these things.

'Night.

[Hannah Bell]

88. (sigh). wow, that's easy. you could have used the little rolly-eye thing too.

[RoyGBiv]

90. K

:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

91. still not in bed? tomorrow comes early, & there will be new complicated

things to deal with.

[RoyGBiv]

93. I'm on vacation ...

Got all kinds of time.

[Hannah Bell]

96. sorry, you already signed out. find someone else to explain the complicated

nature of the rule of law to.

it's about power, brother.

[RoyGBiv]

98. Yeah, I signed out ...

:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

101. the eye-rolly again!!!! it's so cute!

[RoyGBiv]

102. Here's two ...

:eyes: :eyes:

And ...

:bounce:

[Hannah Bell]

104. you've outdone yourself!!! how clever!

[RoyGBiv]

106. I'm awesome like that n/t

[Hannah Bell]

74. "AIG's arguments are absurd on their face.

Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid (they would have had a lower priority under bankruptcy law that AIG's debts to other creditors); indeed, AIG's executives would have long ago been on the street. And any mention of the word "talent" in the same sentence as "AIG" or "credit default swaps" would be laughable if laughing weren't already so expensive.

This sordid story of government helplessness in the face of massive taxpayer commitments illustrates better than anything to date why the government should take over any institution that's "too big to fail" and which has cost taxpayers dearly. Such institutions are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market. To whom should they be accountable? As long as taxpayers effectively own a large portion of them, they should be accountable to the government.

But if our very own Secretary of the Treasury doesn't even learn of the bonuses until months after AIG has decided to pay them, and cannot make stick his decision that they should not be paid, AIG is not even accountable to the government. That means AIG's executives -- using $170 billion of our money, so far -- are accountable to no one."

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/131721/aig_bonuses_scandal:_they_take_our_money_and_are_accountable_to_no_one/


The new admin could have put conditions on the second installment, or refused to pay it.

Giving in to blatant robbery isn't "following the rule of law".

no way, no how. nothing to do with "ideology". no one without fiduciary interest on the left or right supports what's happening.

[Oilwellian]

95. And there you have it

Obama honoring the contract was never an issue. He just had to stop providing them with bailouts and bankruptcy law takes over. Case closed.

[Hannah Bell]

97. course, that's not gonna happen. gonna wring their hands & whine:

"oooh, we'd like to, but...the rule of law, you know! soooooo complicated!!!!"

what a scam.

good cop, bad cop routine.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. Contracts can be voided if they are unconscionable.

That means the terms of them are shocking to the average person.

There are certain rights that you cannot sign away with waivers, either.

[JackRiddler]

86. Not just contracts but bets, apparently.

Tell you what, let's make a contract to bet a trillion dollars on the fluctuation in the value of a stock or bond, even if neither of us can cover the bet. When it goes sour, the Treasury pays us a portion of the fictional amount we wished for, and let's split it. We can even complain that we didn't get the whole amount.

[ddeclue]

105. Why can't the government require the company to sign a contract giving it control in exchange for

the money and give them a choice of that or bankruptcy?

[Hannah Bell]

110. because the government works for the banksters.

the banksters want the money, *and* the control, with no restrictions.

so they get it.

simple.

[Recursion]

117. Asking about benefits is unprofessional?

I had never heard that. I've never even considered a job offer without knowing the full benefits package.

[closeupready]

121. Me, either, but this was a girl I knew about 11 years ago, all of 19 years old,

so she didn't know any better, but the agency had told her that it was 'unprofessional', and I recall laughing about it, and then telling her, 'nonsense, these guys at the top get everything written into their contracts - vacation time, health benefits, pensions - EVERYTHING.' She just looked at me like a deer in the headlights because she didn't know who to believe, but I presume she's well aware now that benefits are an essential part of the compensation package about which she owes it to herself to inquire about - vacation, sick, personal time, transit assistance, child care policy, etc.

[Recursion]

124. Well women in general don't fight very hard for their benefits

At least I've heard that; women don't make counteroffers when offered a salary or a raise, etc.

[Fumesucker]

118. I wrote an OP some months back asking whether the right to engage in contracts was a basic human

Right..

Not one single person here on DU would agree with me that contracts were a basic human right.

And now we have people on this thread defending the rights of those who have engaged in contracts that utterly screw the taxpayers of this nation. The usual suspects have stood up to defend business practices that transfer what will almost certainly wind up as trillions of dollars from average taxpayers to people who I think the great majority of us would agree absolutely do not deserve that money. But those same suspects would not agree that the right to engage in contracts is a basic human right.

Either contracts are a basic human right or they are not. If the right to engage in contracts is not a basic human right then the government abrogating a contract is not a violation of human rights.

[closeupready]

120. I suppose they are also in investment banking or work on Wall St.

But it is indeed telling who defends the crooked, even without an incentive.

[sendero]

126. Let's see here...

... scarcly a week ago we were told of the Obama administration's plan to force bankers to modify mortgage contracts.

Now they say "it's a contract, there is nothing we can do".

BULLSHIT.